Mountain Kills Mountain Biker

[Hanson]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> 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.)
>

habitat? I suspect that you really want to get your greedy, filthy hands onto some real estate for
free, don't you! Wildlife is much smarter then you, and wildlife likes people. But you apparently
don't know that. Even in the middle of the largest cities you have crows, pigeons, possums, foxes
coyotes, hares, etc. as full time residents. Last time I visited LA I saw at noon time, in the
bushes on the 605/5 intersection in Downey, a beautiful cockerel and his entire flock of about a
dozen chicken. Wildlife doesn't need a Vandeman nor any other green turd.
ahahahaha.......ahahahahanson

 

[Doug Haxton]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:02:04 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>.>The shooter was a murderer. . .No he wasn't. Murder, by definition, must involve the death of a
>.human being. Killing a mountain lion cannot be murder.
>
>It was still murder.

Why? Because you say so?

Murder is *by definition* the unlawful taking of a human life. This killing was neither unlawful nor
the killing of human being. It was therefore not murder. Period.

Are you being purposefully dense?
>
>.>He didn't even have any evidence that the lion was .>the culprit. .
>.http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040110/ap_on_re_us/mountain_lion_attack_13
>.___________________________________________________________ .A 2-year-old male mountain lion,
>which weighed about 110 pounds, was .shot and killed Thursday night after it returned to where
>Reynolds' .body was found. . .Initial tests conducted Friday revealed that tissues consistent with
>.human skin were found in the stomach of the male cat, said state Fish .and Game spokeswoman
>Chamois Andersen. The full necropsy will be .completed next week, she said.
>
>That was AFTER it was killed, not before.

1) The culprit (the lion) returned to the scene of the killing. This made it likely (though not
certain) that it was the lion in question.

2) The shooter was right, wasn't he?
>
>."We are fairly confident we have the sole cat that was responsible for .both attacks," Andersen
>said. .___________________________________________________________ . .Here's the thing: you don't
>need to prove that a non-human animal .killed someone...suspicion is more than enough.
>
>Says who?

The law.
>
>.These aren't people we're killing, after all. Only non-human animals. . .> And eating a dead
>human is not a crime. . .It's also not a crime for a mountain lion to kill a human. Non-human
>.animals can't commit crimes. They aren't morally accountable for .their actions, because they're
>not people.
>
>So what?

I thought it rather obvious: Because lions aren't people, they aren't held to the same standards as
people. While they can't be held liable for committing a crime, likewise the standards for killing
them aren't the same as the standards for killing human beings.
>
>*Because* they're not people, it's fine and dandy to kill them if .there's a good reason. Being a
>suspected man-killer is more than .enough reason for me, and for the vast majority of the public as
>well. . .By the way...let the audience note that you weren't able to cite a .single instance of
>someone describing the cat as a "murderer", as you .alleged.
>
>I just did.

Not as far as I can tell. Please be specific: who has described this cat as a "murderer"? Be sure to
provide a link.

Doug

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 17:41:45 -0500, "Dan Volker"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Is this because you feel guilty and subconsciously desire to shorten your life? Just curious...

>Most of the top nutrition minds that handle the top athletes in the world, believe that steak
>provides critical nutrients that an athlete "can not" get from vegetables or fish or chicken.
>Granted the whole BSE thing is a concern, so now I eat only certified organic beef ( beef not fed
>any MBM, and after slaughter, not extracted mechanically).

Note the .sig

Although, yes, I was thinking about BGH, BSE, salmonella, cholesterol and so on

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:55:52 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 06:02:04 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . .>.>The shooter was
a murderer. .>. .>.No he wasn't. Murder, by definition, must involve the death of a .>.human being.
Killing a mountain lion cannot be murder. .> .>It was still murder. . .Why? Because you say so? .
.Murder is *by definition* the unlawful taking of a human life.

No, as "person". That can be an animal. Even a corporation can be a person.

This .killing was neither unlawful nor the killing of human being. It was .therefore not murder.
Period. . .Are you being purposefully dense? .> .>.>He didn't even have any evidence that the lion
was .>.>the culprit. .>.
.>.http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040110/ap_on_re_us/mountain_lion_attack_13
.>.___________________________________________________________ .>.A 2-year-old male mountain lion,
which weighed about 110 pounds, was .>.shot and killed Thursday night after it returned to where
Reynolds' .>.body was found. .>. .>.Initial tests conducted Friday revealed that tissues
consistent with .>.human skin were found in the stomach of the male cat, said state Fish .>.and
Game spokeswoman Chamois Andersen. The full necropsy will be .>.completed next week, she said. .>
.>That was AFTER it was killed, not before. . .1) The culprit (the lion) returned to the scene of
the killing. This .made it likely (though not certain) that it was the lion in question.

That's not proof.

.2) The shooter was right, wasn't he?

No, he was a murderer.

.>."We are fairly confident we have the sole cat that was responsible for .>.both attacks," Andersen
said. .>.___________________________________________________________ .>. .>.Here's the thing: you
don't need to prove that a non-human animal .>.killed someone...suspicion is more than enough. .>
.>Says who? . .The law.

Created by humans.

.>.These aren't people we're killing, after all. Only non-human animals. .>. .>.> And eating a
dead human is not a crime. .>. .>.It's also not a crime for a mountain lion to kill a human. Non-
human .>.animals can't commit crimes. They aren't morally accountable for .>.their actions,
because they're not people. .> .>So what? . .I thought it rather obvious: Because lions aren't
people, they aren't .held to the same standards as people. While they can't be held liable .for
committing a crime, likewise the standards for killing them aren't .the same as the standards for
killing human beings.

Only because humans are selfish.

.>*Because* they're not people, it's fine and dandy to kill them if .>.there's a good reason. Being
a suspected man-killer is more than .>.enough reason for me, and for the vast majority of the public
as well. .>. .>.By the way...let the audience note that you weren't able to cite a .>.single
instance of someone describing the cat as a "murderer", as you .>.alleged. .> .>I just did. . .Not
as far as I can tell. Please be specific: who has described this .cat as a "murderer"? Be sure to
provide a link.

I just did.

.Doug

===
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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 04:07:48 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms
> my view that .> (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of .>
> pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat and .> disturb the
> wildlife whose home it is; and (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; .> wildlife have already lost
> far too much habitat, and deserve to have habitat .> that is closed to all humans. This is
> ESPECIALLY true for animals that are .> dangerous to humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness
> Park in the Cleveland .> National Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to this
> .> incident. . .Mike you are surely clueless. The cougar attacked a human that was .crouching near
> his bike to repair it. The Reynolds was apparently not .that far from the trailhead and easily
> reachable by hikers.
>
> Neither would have been there, if bikes weren't allowed: mountain bikers are too lazy to walk.
Let's assume you are right (even though I can easily prove you wrong as I know many individuals that
ride mt. bikes and also hike considerabe distances from time to time - such as myself. I own two
pairs of biking shoes - one rd, one mt. bike and eight pairs of hiking shoes. I wear one to two
pairs of trail shoes out a year.). The site is also used by hikers (bi-peds) and the cougar would
just as likely killed a hiker as almost all attacks have been of hikers.

> The cougar
> . did not see a mt biker but prey, a extremely rare circumstance, but .not unknown (the hiker in
> San Diego in 1994 and the ultra marathon .runner on a trail in cool California are the only
> other fatalities from .cougars in California since 1909.
>
> What's your point?

I am not sure whether you need to take a remedial reading class or just simply lack gray matter. The
mode of transporation is not really relevant in this case. The location of the attack was within
easy distance of the numerous hikers that use this trail (hell, my daughter at three could have
easily made it).

> .> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to survive, the .> only way it
> knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the animal first, .> and then try to justify it
> (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans, .> you are innocent till proven guilty. .
> .It turns out that this cougar was responsible.
>
> But if it wasn't, it would still be dead. Hypocrite.
>
The wardens had substanial resson to believe that this cougar was responsble. They tracked it from
the attack zone. Keep in mind the average density of cougars for Orange County is about 6 adults per
100 square miles, hardly one behind every bush. So how is using evidence from the site to tree the
cat and shot it hypocritical, they had cause, and strong reason to believe they had the right cat
(and guess what they did).

> Our response as a .society to kill an animal that killed us is pretty primal and consistent
> .with other species.
>
> That doesn't justify it. If anything animals do is okay, then eating humans is okay.
>
Justification is based on philosphy. The vast majority of society does not hold your view, in this
case (until the Supreme Court overturns it) society's wishes are carried out. It is justified
beacuse we have deemed it so. Great thing is you can disagree.

> .I suggest you put your effort to encouraging people to recognize that .attacks from cougars are
> extremely rare and that we should continue to .protect the habitats they occur in.
>
> Allowing people to go there doesn't protect the habitat. As an alleged "biologist", you should
> know that. And be honest enough to admit it. Scientists are supposed to be interested in the
> truth. You aren't. You are interested in rationalizing mountain biking, for some reason.

Some of the best (based on the average density of cougars and overall stability of the population)
quality habitat in the country is in your backyard. The Mt. Hamilton area of the Diablo Range. This
area is so high quality, not because no one goes there - they do, it is so beacuse it is relatively
development free. And one kick you are on is a good one, paved roads have been kept to a minimum.
But guess what, ranchers ranch it, hikers and bikers hike it. Equestrians ride it. Researchers
reserch it and so on and so on. I defy you to find substantially better habitat (define quality
based on average density and stability of the population). Your are right I do not have a bone to
pick with hikers, bikers, etc. Do I advocate whole sale opening of parks to all users; no. I support
trail closers when based on thoughtful reasons. I personlly like National Parks being closed to mt.
bikers (not so much for scientific reasons, but more for aesthics). Virtually all ecologist hike
(our interest of nature is why we got interested in the field to begin with) and a signficant number
ride mt. bikes - even many of the researchers you parrot - I won't tell you which ones as they will
acuse me of unleashing a stalker on them.

>
> Your irrational rantings merely .serve to convince your audience you are nuts and maybe
> they will react .to lessen protection of areas cougars need, not increase them. . .Get a
> clue. . .Rick
>
> ===
> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00:24 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:49:37 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote: .>
> .> . .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
> .news:[email protected]... .> .> The fact that a mountain lion is
> attacking mountain bikers confirms my .> .view that .> .> (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks
> and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of .> .> pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into
> wildlife habitat .> .and .> .> disturb the wildlife whose home it is; .> . .> .I'll make a slight
> exception to my usual rule of simply ignoring you, Mikey. .> .Just this once, 'cause we truly do
> love you... .> .> Filter broken? .> .> .By your own oft repeated definition, the victim in
> question was *not a .> .mountain biker* at the time of the attack. He was off his bike, fixing
> it. .> .> That's mountain biker logic. He was obviously still a mountain biker. . . .What you
> think or anyone else thinks is really not relevant. What did .the cougar see. He was not
> attracted to something moving (e.g., a .riding cyclist) he instead saw a crouched animal, it
> could have just as .easily been a hiker looking at a flower, insect or track, or even taking .a
> ****. The hiker in San Diego in 1994 was apparently crouching when .attacked. Did the cougar
> mistake her for a mt. biker?
>
> What's your point? They were human. Banning humans from the park would protect them and the lions.
> Bikes list increase the number of people in the park & how far they are able to travel.
>
> .> .Had he been a hiker (you, maybe), and stopped to tie his shoe, the same .> .exact thing might
> have happened. Presenting a small, vulnerable target. .> . .> .Maybe even you could
> realize...it's not about the bike. .> .But I doubt it. .> .> BS. The bike allows people to travel
> much farther in wildlife habitat -- people .> who are too lazy to WALK. But you forgot that I
> recommended closing the area to .> ALL humans. .> .Most people attack are hikers; only a few mt.
> bikers and equestrians .have been attacked. Your argument falls down as it does a poor job
> .explaining the facts.
>
> I wasn't trying to explain anything. The facts are obvious: humans were killed in the park. If
> they were banned, they wouldn't have been killed in the park, nor would the lion.

I am willing to take my chances, since there are several hundred million recreational visitors days
a year in California and less than one attack a year. I don't think I or a cat killed on my behalf
will happen anytime to soon.

>
> .> .Pete .> .bye bye for now. .> . .> .> === .> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:26:33 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On 14 Jan 2004 12:23:44 -0800, [email protected] (Jonesy)
> wrote: .> .> ."S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>... .> .> Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> > The fact
> that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .> .> > my view that (1) bicycles don't
> belong in our parks and open spaces .> .> {snip} .> .> .> .> First of all, nice header. (Almost
> true in Miles' recent past.) Can we .> .> assume you use similar diligence in all your "research"
> efforts? .> . .> .In this case, I'm sure that some peer somewhere reviewed it and said,

> .> . .> .> Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would .> .> be
> equally likely to happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the .> .> outrage if it HAD been
> hikers, and someone suggested they deserved to be .> .> attacked.) .> . .> .The person wasn't
> riding a bike at the time of the attack, so .> .therefore the cat did attack a hiker. Duh. .> .>
> B.S. He was a mountain biker, which is obvious to everyone except mountain .> bikers. . .Do you
> work at being this dumb or is it a gift from God.
>
> Am I wrong?

Yes!
> ===
> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:24:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:56:23 GMT, Strider <[email protected]> wrote:
> .> .> .On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:56:55 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> wrote: .> . .> .>Strider
> wrote: .> .> .> .>>It's an animal. It was hunting humans, not their natural prey, because .> .>>it
> was hungry. .> .>> .> .>In the scenario given, the human WAS natural prey as seen through the .>
> .>cougar's eyes. Everyone is on someone's food chain; from a carnivore's .> .>perspective, a human
> is emminently edible. .> .> .> .>Pete H .> . .> .Mountain lion normally attack people? .> . .>
> .Not according to just about everyone else that's weighed in on the .> .matter. .> .> As they know
> what's "normal" for another species. .> . .Actually Mike, we can easily determine what is normal
> for cougars. .While catholic in their diet (they can and do eat just about any animal .that occurs
> in nature) they specialize on cervids (deer and elk). In .areas where pigs are common, some
> individuals exhibit a prediliction for .pig, but even in these areas pigs provide less caloric
> value than deer.
> . we know that ecologically cougars do not view humans as prey, even in .Southern California.
>
> Statistics don't prove ****. Just because they eat humans less frewuently than deer doesn't make
> eating humans "abnormal". Just rare.
>
You claim to be a mathematician, but clearly this is not your forte. The fact that humans are
available to eat, and they choose to attack humans less than once a year in California, is a robust
demonstration that they avoid humans as prey. This is a rather well accepted and demonstrated
ecological principle. So the fact that the entire cougar population in California attacks less than
one human a year (and even fever of these attacks results in eating as most attacks are not fatal),
this is not abnormal. I wonder what your definition of abnormal is.

> There are several hundred million recreational .visitor days a year in cougar country in
> California and we have less .than one attack a year. Tens of thousands of times people come
> within a .couple hundred meters (or closer) to cougars and are simply unaware of .it as the
> cougar avoids them.
>
> Your point? They are still driving the cougars out of their habitat, and thus should be banned.
>
> .Rick . . . . .> .Strider .> .> === .> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

hanson wrote:

> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news[email protected]...
>
>>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.)
>>
>

I didn't know Mike enjoyed kite flying.

habitat? I suspect that you really want to get your greedy,
> filthy hands onto some real estate for free, don't you! Wildlife is much smarter then you, and
> wildlife likes people. But you apparently don't know that. Even in the middle of the largest
> cities you have crows, pigeons, possums, foxes coyotes, hares, etc. as full time residents. Last
> time I visited LA I saw at noon time, in the bushes on the 605/5 intersection in Downey, a
> beautiful cockerel and his entire flock of about a dozen chicken. Wildlife doesn't need a Vandeman
> nor any other green turd. ahahahaha.......ahahahahanson

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:17:16 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 04:07:48 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking
mountain bikers confirms my view that .> .> (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces,
or ANYWHERE off of .> .> pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat and
.> .> disturb the wildlife whose home it is; and (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; .> .> wildlife
have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve to have habitat .> .> that is closed to all
humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are .> .> dangerous to humans. Closing the Whiting
Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland .> .> National Forest to human access is the only appropriate
response to this .> .> incident. .> . .> .Mike you are surely clueless. The cougar attacked a human
that was .> .crouching near his bike to repair it. The Reynolds was apparently not .> .that far from
the trailhead and easily reachable by hikers. .> .> Neither would have been there, if bikes weren't
allowed: mountain bikers are too .> lazy to walk. .Let's assume you are right (even though I can
easily prove you wrong as .I know many individuals that ride mt. bikes and also hike considerabe
.distances from time to time - such as myself.

So you finally admit that you are a mountain biker. NO WONDER you are trying to defend
mountain biking!

I own two pairs of biking .shoes - one rd, one mt. bike and eight pairs of hiking shoes. I wear
.one to two pairs of trail shoes out a year.). The site is also used by
. hikers (bi-peds) and the cougar would just as likely killed a hiker as .almost all attacks have
been of hikers.

It is very unlikely that cougars care whether their next meal arrives by bike or on foot. They can
easily outrun a biker. Besides, bikers always get off their bike at some point, so they would be
pedestrians also.

.> The cougar .> . did not see a mt biker but prey, a extremely rare circumstance, but .> .not
unknown (the hiker in San Diego in 1994 and the ultra marathon .> .runner on a trail in cool
California are the only other fatalities from .> .cougars in California since 1909. .> .> What's
your point? . .I am not sure whether you need to take a remedial reading class or just .simply lack
gray matter. The mode of transporation is not really .relevant in this case. The location of the
attack was within easy .distance of the numerous hikers that use this trail (hell, my daughter .at
three could have easily made it).

You are making generalizations from a sample size of ONE? Try that at one of your so-called
"scientific" conferences! They would laugh (or boo) you off the stage! The fact remains that bikes
allow people to impact several times as much habitat.

.> .> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to survive, the .> .> only
way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the animal first, .> .> and then try to
justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans, .> .> you are innocent till proven
guilty. .> . .> .It turns out that this cougar was responsible. .> .> But if it wasn't, it would
still be dead. Hypocrite. .> .The wardens had substanial resson to believe that this cougar was
.responsble. They tracked it from the attack zone. Keep in mind the .average density of cougars for
Orange County is about 6 adults per 100 .square miles, hardly one behind every bush. So how is using
evidence .from the site to tree the cat and shot it hypocritical, they had cause, .and strong reason
to believe they had the right cat (and guess what they
. did).

That is less than the standard of evidence for humans.

.> Our response as a .> .society to kill an animal that killed us is pretty primal and consistent .>
.with other species. .> .> That doesn't justify it. If anything animals do is okay, then eating
humans is .> okay. .> .Justification is based on philosphy. The vast majority of society does .not
hold your view, in this case (until the Supreme Court overturns it) .society's wishes are carried
out. It is justified beacuse we have .deemed it so. Great thing is you can disagree.

You haven't made a reasonable case for killing the cougar. And you claim to be studying them, and
presumably CARE about them and their welfare?

.> .I suggest you put your effort to encouraging people to recognize that .> .attacks from cougars
are extremely rare and that we should continue to .> .protect the habitats they occur in. .> .>
Allowing people to go there doesn't protect the habitat. As an alleged .> "biologist", you should
know that. And be honest enough to admit it. Scientists .> are supposed to be interested in the
truth. You aren't. You are interested in .> rationalizing mountain biking, for some reason. . .Some
of the best (based on the average density of cougars and overall .stability of the population)
quality habitat in the country is in your .backyard. The Mt. Hamilton area of the Diablo Range. This
area is so .high quality, not because no one goes there - they do, it is so beacuse .it is
relatively development free.

Which is why it is relatively human-free. You can't separate those two features.

And one kick you are on is a good .one, paved roads have been kept to a minimum. But guess what,
ranchers .ranch it, hikers and bikers hike it. Equestrians ride it. Researchers .reserch it and so
on and so on.

I drove the Mines Road once. I saw hardly any humans the whole trip. The area is very dry and
unproductive.

I defy you to find substantially better .habitat (define quality based on average density and
stability of the .population). Your are right I do not have a bone to pick with hikers, .bikers,
etc. Do I advocate whole sale opening of parks to all users; .no. I support trail closers when
based on thoughtful reasons. I .personlly like National Parks being closed to mt. bikers

There you go again, LYING. National Parks are closed to mountain BIKING, NOT to mountain BIKERS.

(not so much .for scientific reasons, but more for aesthics). Virtually all ecologist .hike (our
interest of nature is why we got interested in the field to .begin with) and a signficant number
ride mt. bikes - even many of the .researchers you parrot - I won't tell you which ones as they
will acuse .me of unleashing a stalker on them.

How many support closing habitat to all humans? Those are the ones I want to meet.

.> Your irrational rantings merely .> .serve to convince your audience you are nuts and maybe they
will react .> .to lessen protection of areas cougars need, not increase them. .> . .> .Get a clue.
.> . .> .Rick .> .> === .> 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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:19:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00:24 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:49:37 GMT, "Pete"
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> . .> .> ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
.> .news:[email protected]... .> .> .> The fact that a mountain lion is
attacking mountain bikers confirms my .> .> .view that .> .> .> (1) bicycles don't belong in our
parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of .> .> .> pavement; they make it too easy for people to get
into wildlife habitat .> .> .and .> .> .> disturb the wildlife whose home it is; .> .> . .> .> .I'll
make a slight exception to my usual rule of simply ignoring you, Mikey. .> .> .Just this once,
'cause we truly do love you... .> .> .> .> Filter broken? .> .> .> .> .By your own oft repeated
definition, the victim in question was *not a .> .> .mountain biker* at the time of the attack. He
was off his bike, fixing it. .> .> .> .> That's mountain biker logic. He was obviously still a
mountain biker. .> . .> . .> .What you think or anyone else thinks is really not relevant. What did
.> .the cougar see. He was not attracted to something moving (e.g., a .> .riding cyclist) he instead
saw a crouched animal, it could have just as .> .easily been a hiker looking at a flower, insect or
track, or even taking .> .a ****. The hiker in San Diego in 1994 was apparently crouching when .>
.attacked. Did the cougar mistake her for a mt. biker? .> .> What's your point? They were human.
Banning humans from the park would protect .> them and the lions. Bikes list increase the number of
people in the park & how .> far they are able to travel. .> .> .> .Had he been a hiker (you, maybe),
and stopped to tie his shoe, the same .> .> .exact thing might have happened. Presenting a small,
vulnerable target. .> .> . .> .> .Maybe even you could realize...it's not about the bike. .> .> .But
I doubt it. .> .> .> .> BS. The bike allows people to travel much farther in wildlife habitat --
people .> .> who are too lazy to WALK. But you forgot that I recommended closing the area to .> .>
ALL humans. .> .> .> .Most people attack are hikers; only a few mt. bikers and equestrians .> .have
been attacked. Your argument falls down as it does a poor job .> .explaining the facts. .> .> I
wasn't trying to explain anything. The facts are obvious: humans were killed .> in the park. If they
were banned, they wouldn't have been killed in the park, .> nor would the lion. . .I am willing to
take my chances, since there are several hundred million .recreational visitors days a year in
California and less than one attack .a year. I don't think I or a cat killed on my behalf will
happen .anytime to soon.

So you are willing to risk all of the mountain lions in that park, just so your buddies can hike &
bike there? No wonder you aren't into conservation biology: you don't CARE about wildlife, only your
own career & pastimes.

.> .> .Pete .> .> .bye bye for now. .> .> . .> .> .> .> === .> .> 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

===
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]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:25:53 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:26:33 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .> On 14 Jan 2004 12:23:44 -0800,
[email protected] (Jonesy) wrote: .> .> .> .> ."S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in
message news:<[email protected]>... .> .> .> Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> >
The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .> .> .> > my view that (1)
bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces .> .> .> {snip} .> .> .> .> .> .> First of all,
nice header. (Almost true in Miles' recent past.) Can we .> .> .> assume you use similar diligence
in all your "research" efforts? .> .> . .> .> .In this case, I'm sure that some peer somewhere
reviewed it and said,

.> .> . .> .> .> Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would .>
.> .> be equally likely to happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the .> .> .> outrage
if it HAD been hikers, and someone suggested they deserved to be .> .> .> attacked.) .> .> . .>
.> .The person wasn't riding a bike at the time of the attack, so .> .> .therefore the cat did
attack a hiker. Duh. .> .> .> .> B.S. He was a mountain biker, which is obvious to everyone
except mountain .> .> bikers. .> . .> .Do you work at being this dumb or is it a gift from God.
.> .> Am I wrong? . .Yes!

So he wasn't a mountain biker? You make no sense.

.> === .> 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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:25:12 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:24:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 19:56:23 GMT, Strider
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> .On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:56:55 -0500, Peter H
<[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> .> .>Strider wrote: .> .> .> .> .> .>>It's an animal. It was
hunting humans, not their natural prey, because .> .> .>>it was hungry. .> .> .>> .> .> .>In the
scenario given, the human WAS natural prey as seen through the .> .> .>cougar's eyes. Everyone is on
someone's food chain; from a carnivore's .> .> .>perspective, a human is emminently edible. .> .> .>
.> .> .>Pete H .> .> . .> .> .Mountain lion normally attack people? .> .> . .> .> .Not according to
just about everyone else that's weighed in on the .> .> .matter. .> .> .> .> As they know what's
"normal" for another species. .> .> .> . .> .Actually Mike, we can easily determine what is normal
for cougars. .> .While catholic in their diet (they can and do eat just about any animal .> .that
occurs in nature) they specialize on cervids (deer and elk). In .> .areas where pigs are common,
some individuals exhibit a prediliction for .> .pig, but even in these areas pigs provide less
caloric value than deer. .> . we know that ecologically cougars do not view humans as prey, even in
.> .Southern California. .> .> Statistics don't prove ****. Just because they eat humans less
frewuently than .> deer doesn't make eating humans "abnormal". Just rare. .> .You claim to be a
mathematician, but clearly this is not your forte. .The fact that humans are available to eat, and
they choose to attack .humans less than once a year in California, is a robust demonstration .that
they avoid humans as prey.

That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether humans as prey are "natural".
Clearly, they are, or that mountain lion wouldn't have been trying to eat a human. I doubt that it
was a mutant.

This is a rather well accepted and .demonstrated ecological principle. So the fact that the entire
cougar .population in California attacks less than one human a year (and even .fever of these
attacks results in eating as most attacks are not fatal), .this is not abnormal. I wonder what
your definition of abnormal is.

Abnormal would be a mountain lion speaking English. Mountain lions have always eaten humans,
throughout our evolutionary history. They don't eat many mostly because we are too hard to catch,
relative to deer etc.

.> There are several hundred million recreational .> .visitor days a year in cougar country in
California and we have less .> .than one attack a year. Tens of thousands of times people come
within a .> .couple hundred meters (or closer) to cougars and are simply unaware of .> .it as the
cougar avoids them. .> .> Your point? They are still driving the cougars out of their habitat, and
thus .> should be banned. .> .> .Rick .> . .> . .> . .> . .> .> .Strider .> .> .> .> === .> .> 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

===
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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

> . .Some of the best (based on the average density of cougars and overall .stability of the
> population) quality habitat in the country is in your .backyard. The Mt. Hamilton area of the
> Diablo Range. This area is so .high quality, not because no one goes there - they do, it is so
> beacuse .it is relatively development free.
>
> Which is why it is relatively human-free. You can't separate those two features.

The most common user of the Range is Mt. bikers who are common in Coe and Grant Parks. The reason
there is such good habitat for cougars is not beacause there are no hikers or bikers, it is because
there is no development. In other words its loss of habitat stupid, not the hiker and bikers. If it
had to do with park users, then the density of cougars would be less in the park then surrounding
lands, (Coe Park is over a 130 square miles) guess what, the density if about the same, because
there is no development and the deer numbers are quite good and stable. Read the Hazard Warnings on
the Coe Park map, nary a warning about lions lots of other warnings about not being stupid and
making sure you take off on your hike or biking expedition with water.

> And one kick you are on is a good .one, paved roads have been kept to a minimum. But guess what,
> ranchers .ranch it, hikers and bikers hike it. Equestrians ride it. Researchers .reserch it and
> so on and so on.
>
> I drove the Mines Road once. I saw hardly any humans the whole trip. The area is very dry and
> unproductive.

Rather productive for wildlife and the signficant # of hikers and bikers that use the State and
County Parks.

> I defy you to find substantially better .habitat (define quality based on average density and
> stability of the .population). Your are right I do not have a bone to pick with hikers, .bikers,
> etc. Do I advocate whole sale opening of parks to all users; .no. I support trail closers when
> based on thoughtful reasons. I .personlly like National Parks being closed to mt. bikers
>
> There you go again, LYING. National Parks are closed to mountain BIKING, NOT to mountain BIKERS.

I as everyone else use the term to refer to bikers who are riding off road. When I road ride (about
65 to 70% of the time, I am not a mt. biker but a road rider)

> (not so much .for scientific reasons, but more for aesthics). Virtually all ecologist .hike (our
> interest of nature is why we got interested in the field to .begin with) and a signficant number
> ride mt. bikes - even many of the .researchers you parrot - I won't tell you which ones as they
> will acuse .me of unleashing a stalker on them.
>
> How many support closing habitat to all humans? Those are the ones I want to meet.

Almost none, I have yet to meet an ecologist that advocates closing wild areas to all people. I
know many like myself who advocate controlling access to some areas. Quite a number of ecologist
actually mt. bike, it is primarily an age thing. RElatively few of us older than 50 ever mt. bike
as as the age declines to graduate school, a large % mt. bike. I guess the entire scientific
community must be scum.

> .> Your irrational rantings merely .> .serve to convince your audience you are nuts and maybe they
> will react .> .to lessen protection of areas cougars need, not increase them. .> . .> .Get a clue.
> .> . .> .Rick .> .> === .> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:19:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00:24 GMT, Rick Hopkins
> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004
> 05:49:37 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> . .> .> ."Mike Vandeman"
> <[email protected]> wrote in message .> .> .news:[email protected]...
> .> .> .> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my .> .> .view that
> .> .> .> (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of .> .> .>
> pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat .> .> .and .> .> .>
> disturb the wildlife whose home it is; .> .> . .> .> .I'll make a slight exception to my usual
> rule of simply ignoring you, Mikey. .> .> .Just this once, 'cause we truly do love you... .> .>
> .> .> Filter broken? .> .> .> .> .By your own oft repeated definition, the victim in question was
> *not a .> .> .mountain biker* at the time of the attack. He was off his bike, fixing it. .> .> .>
> .> That's mountain biker logic. He was obviously still a mountain biker. .> . .> . .> .What you
> think or anyone else thinks is really not relevant. What did .> .the cougar see. He was not
> attracted to something moving (e.g., a .> .riding cyclist) he instead saw a crouched animal, it
> could have just as .> .easily been a hiker looking at a flower, insect or track, or even taking .>
> .a ****. The hiker in San Diego in 1994 was apparently crouching when .> .attacked. Did the cougar
> mistake her for a mt. biker? .> .> What's your point? They were human. Banning humans from the
> park would protect .> them and the lions. Bikes list increase the number of people in the park &
> how .> far they are able to travel. .> .> .> .Had he been a hiker (you, maybe), and stopped to tie
> his shoe, the same .> .> .exact thing might have happened. Presenting a small, vulnerable target.
> .> .> . .> .> .Maybe even you could realize...it's not about the bike. .> .> .But I doubt it. .>
> .> .> .> BS. The bike allows people to travel much farther in wildlife habitat -- people .> .> who
> are too lazy to WALK. But you forgot that I recommended closing the area to .> .> ALL humans. .>
> .> .> .Most people attack are hikers; only a few mt. bikers and equestrians .> .have been
> attacked. Your argument falls down as it does a poor job .> .explaining the facts. .> .> I wasn't
> trying to explain anything. The facts are obvious: humans were killed .> in the park. If they were
> banned, they wouldn't have been killed in the park, .> nor would the lion. . .I am willing to take
> my chances, since there are several hundred million .recreational visitors days a year in
> California and less than one attack .a year. I don't think I or a cat killed on my behalf will
> happen .anytime to soon.
>
> So you are willing to risk all of the mountain lions in that park, just so your buddies can hike &
> bike there? No wonder you aren't into conservation biology: you don't CARE about wildlife, only
> your own career & pastimes.

Since I or my buddies will never be attacked by a cougar (your risk of being attacked is greater
than 1: 100 million; probably more like 1: 700 or 800 million - there are 800 million or more
recreational visitor days a year in California alone and less than one attack a year - in fact we
went from August of 1995 to Nov of 2002 without an attack.)

> .> .> .Pete .> .> .bye bye for now. .> .> . .> .> .> .> === .> .> 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
>
> ===
> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:25:53 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:26:33 GMT, Rick Hopkins
> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .> On 14 Jan 2004
> 12:23:44 -0800, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote: .> .> .> .> ."S o r n i" <sorni@bite-
> me.san.rr.com> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>... .> .> .> Mike
> Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> > The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .>
> .> .> > my view that (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces .> .> .> {snip} .> .>
> .> .> .> .> First of all, nice header. (Almost true in Miles' recent past.) Can we .> .> .> assume
> you use similar diligence in all your "research" efforts? .> .> . .> .> .In this case, I'm sure
> that some peer somewhere reviewed it and said,

> .> .> . .> .> .> Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would .>
> .> .> be equally likely to happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the .> .> .> outrage
> if it HAD been hikers, and someone suggested they deserved to be .> .> .> attacked.) .> .> . .>
> .> .The person wasn't riding a bike at the time of the attack, so .> .> .therefore the cat did
> attack a hiker. Duh. .> .> .> .> B.S. He was a mountain biker, which is obvious to everyone
> except mountain .> .> bikers. .> . .> .Do you work at being this dumb or is it a gift from God.
> .> .> Am I wrong? . .Yes!
>
> So he wasn't a mountain biker? You make no sense.
>
Let's try it more slowly. The issue is not what you think, but what the cougar thinks. This is a
point I make often to lay groups to talk too. See what the lion sees. If the lion had attack a
moving cyclist, then we could argue that the activity was important to the courgar as it is what
triggered the attack. The biker was not far up the trail, within easy walking distance of a 3 yr
old, so the activity did not place the mt. biker at risk by putting him only where mt. bikers could
reach. He was where hikers walk daily. So the fact he road his bike to where he was attack is of
little relevance (except to you - but not the cougar); the cougar saw an individual crouched not
riding. The guy might also be a beer drinker, but that had no relevance either, maybe he played the
cello, I don't know; but the cougar detected the individual crouching by his bike - end of story.

> .> === .> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:25:12 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:24:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins
> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004
> 19:56:23 GMT, Strider <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> .On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:56:55 -0500,
> Peter H <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> .> .>Strider wrote: .> .> .> .> .> .>>It's an animal.
> It was hunting humans, not their natural prey, because .> .> .>>it was hungry. .> .> .>> .> .>
> .>In the scenario given, the human WAS natural prey as seen through the .> .> .>cougar's eyes.
> Everyone is on someone's food chain; from a carnivore's .> .> .>perspective, a human is emminently
> edible. .> .> .> .> .> .>Pete H .> .> . .> .> .Mountain lion normally attack people? .> .> . .> .>
> .Not according to just about everyone else that's weighed in on the .> .> .matter. .> .> .> .> As
> they know what's "normal" for another species. .> .> .> . .> .Actually Mike, we can easily
> determine what is normal for cougars. .> .While catholic in their diet (they can and do eat just
> about any animal .> .that occurs in nature) they specialize on cervids (deer and elk). In .>
> .areas where pigs are common, some individuals exhibit a prediliction for .> .pig, but even in
> these areas pigs provide less caloric value than deer. .> . we know that ecologically cougars do
> not view humans as prey, even in .> .Southern California. .> .> Statistics don't prove ****. Just
> because they eat humans less frewuently than .> deer doesn't make eating humans "abnormal". Just
> rare. .> .You claim to be a mathematician, but clearly this is not your forte. .The fact that
> humans are available to eat, and they choose to attack .humans less than once a year in
> California, is a robust demonstration .that they avoid humans as prey.
>
> That's not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether humans as prey are "natural".
> Clearly, they are, or that mountain lion wouldn't have been trying to eat a human. I doubt that it
> was a mutant.
>
> This is a rather well accepted and .demonstrated ecological principle. So the fact that the
> entire cougar .population in California attacks less than one human a year (and even .fever of
> these attacks results in eating as most attacks are not fatal), .this is not abnormal. I wonder
> what your definition of abnormal is.
>
> Abnormal would be a mountain lion speaking English. Mountain lions have always eaten humans,
> throughout our evolutionary history. They don't eat many mostly because we are too hard to catch,
> relative to deer etc.

You are not a scientist for a reason as you lack reason. Abnormal is a state that rarely occurs,
hence it is abnormal. Humans are not prey, because for whatever reason, cougars do not choose us as
prey. Tigers, African lions, leopards, jaguars, all kill people with some regularity, it is not
abnormal for them to view humans as prey; guess what knucklehead, a little more than one attack a
year for all of North America, I and every other credible biologists who has studied the beast will
tell you it is abnormal for cougars to view us as prey.

> .> There are several hundred million recreational .> .visitor days a year in cougar country in
> California and we have less .> .than one attack a year. Tens of thousands of times people come
> within a .> .couple hundred meters (or closer) to cougars and are simply unaware of .> .it as the
> cougar avoids them. .> .> Your point? They are still driving the cougars out of their habitat, and
> thus .> should be banned.

The recreation is not the problem - cougars are abundant everywhere in the state there is little or
no development and deer are plentiful. Whether or not people recreate there has no statistical
bearing on predicting if cougars are abundant. Maybe I should say it more slowly, the people in the
park are not the problem, it is the housing development taking away their home ranges and cutting
off their corridors. You should read Dr. Paul Beier's work before you make a complete fool of
yourself (oh, too late).

.> .Rick
> .> . .> . .> . .> . .> .> .Strider .> .> .> .> === .> .> 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
>
> ===
> 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]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:48:48 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> . .> .Some of the best (based on the average density of cougars and overall .> .stability of
the population) quality habitat in the country is in your .> .backyard. The Mt. Hamilton area of the
Diablo Range. This area is so .> .high quality, not because no one goes there - they do, it is so
beacuse .> .it is relatively development free. .> .> Which is why it is relatively human-free. You
can't separate those two features. . .The most common user of the Range is Mt. bikers who are common
in Coe .and Grant Parks. The reason there is such good habitat for cougars is .not beacause there
are no hikers or bikers, it is because there is no .development.

And because there are few humans. Be honest. I know that's difficult for a mountain biker. Maybe
IMPOSSIBLE.

In other words its loss of habitat stupid, not the hiker .and bikers.

Presence of humans IS a loss of habitat, stupid. It is less functional than it would be if there
were no humans. That's OBVIOUS to everyone but mountain bikers, even allegedly educated ones.

If it had to do with park users, then the density of .cougars would be less in the park
then surrounding lands, (Coe Park is .over a 130 square miles) guess what, the density if
about the same,

Statistically significant? I thought not. Did you skip that class? Oh, I forgot, you can't get a
degree in biology without it.

.because there is no development and the deer numbers are quite good and .stable. Read the Hazard
Warnings on the Coe Park map, nary a warning .about lions lots of other warnings about not being
stupid and making .sure you take off on your hike or biking expedition with water. . . .> And one
kick you are on is a good .> .one, paved roads have been kept to a minimum. But guess what, ranchers
.> .ranch it, hikers and bikers hike it. Equestrians ride it. Researchers .> .reserch it and so on
and so on. .> .> I drove the Mines Road once. I saw hardly any humans the whole trip. The area is .>
very dry and unproductive. . .Rather productive for wildlife and the signficant # of hikers and
bikers .that use the State and County Parks. . .> I defy you to find substantially better .>
.habitat (define quality based on average density and stability of the .> .population). Your are
right I do not have a bone to pick with hikers, .> .bikers, etc. Do I advocate whole sale opening of
parks to all users; .> .no. I support trail closers when based on thoughtful reasons. I .>
.personlly like National Parks being closed to mt. bikers .> .> There you go again, LYING. National
Parks are closed to mountain BIKING, NOT to .> mountain BIKERS. . .I as everyone else use the term
to refer to bikers who are riding off .road. When I road ride (about 65 to 70% of the time, I am not
a mt. .biker but a road rider)

BS. You say that mountain bikers are "banned" because you think it will get you sympathy, KNOWING
THAT IT IS A LIE. ALL mountain bikers tell that same lie. Since you KNOW that only bikes are banned,
why don't you say "bikes are banned", instead of "mountain bikers are banned"? Oh, I forgot: tat
would require you to tell the truth, and mountain bikers are allergic to that -- even ones whose
PROFESSION is allegedly telling the truth.

.> (not so much .> .for scientific reasons, but more for aesthics). Virtually all ecologist .> .hike
(our interest of nature is why we got interested in the field to .> .begin with) and a signficant
number ride mt. bikes - even many of the .> .researchers you parrot - I won't tell you which ones as
they will acuse .> .me of unleashing a stalker on them. .> .> How many support closing habitat to
all humans? Those are the ones I want to .> meet. . .Almost none, I have yet to meet an ecologist
that advocates closing wild .areas to all people. I know many like myself who advocate controlling
.access to some areas. Quite a number of ecologist actually mt. bike, it .is primarily an age thing.
RElatively few of us older than 50 ever mt. .bike as as the age declines to graduate school, a large
% mt. bike. I .guess the entire scientific community must be scum.

Yes, most are in it for a JOB, and don't really care about protecting wildlife (or did once, and
outgrew it). Those who DO care are in conservation biology.

.> .> Your irrational rantings merely .> .> .serve to convince your audience you are nuts and maybe
they will react .> .> .to lessen protection of areas cougars need, not increase them. .> .> . .> .>
.Get a clue. .> .> . .> .> .Rick .> .> .> .> === .> .> 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

===
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]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 03:54:25 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:19:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:00:24 GMT, Rick
Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> . .> .> . .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> . .>
.> .> On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:49:37 GMT, "Pete" <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> .> .> . .> .> .>
."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .> .> .>
.news:[email protected]... .> .> .> .> The fact that a mountain lion is
attacking mountain bikers confirms my .> .> .> .view that .> .> .> .> (1) bicycles don't belong in
our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of .> .> .> .> pavement; they make it too easy for people
to get into wildlife habitat .> .> .> .and .> .> .> .> disturb the wildlife whose home it is; .> .>
.> . .> .> .> .I'll make a slight exception to my usual rule of simply ignoring you, Mikey. .> .> .>
.Just this once, 'cause we truly do love you... .> .> .> .> .> .> Filter broken? .> .> .> .> .> .>
.By your own oft repeated definition, the victim in question was *not a .> .> .> .mountain biker* at
the time of the attack. He was off his bike, fixing it. .> .> .> .> .> .> That's mountain biker
logic. He was obviously still a mountain biker. .> .> . .> .> . .> .> .What you think or anyone else
thinks is really not relevant. What did .> .> .the cougar see. He was not attracted to something
moving (e.g., a .> .> .riding cyclist) he instead saw a crouched animal, it could have just as .> .>
.easily been a hiker looking at a flower, insect or track, or even taking .> .> .a ****. The hiker
in San Diego in 1994 was apparently crouching when .> .> .attacked. Did the cougar mistake her for a
mt. biker? .> .> .> .> What's your point? They were human. Banning humans from the park would
protect .> .> them and the lions. Bikes list increase the number of people in the park & how .> .>
far they are able to travel. .> .> .> .> .> .Had he been a hiker (you, maybe), and stopped to tie
his shoe, the same .> .> .> .exact thing might have happened. Presenting a small, vulnerable target.
.> .> .> . .> .> .> .Maybe even you could realize...it's not about the bike. .> .> .> .But I doubt
it. .> .> .> .> .> .> BS. The bike allows people to travel much farther in wildlife habitat --
people .> .> .> who are too lazy to WALK. But you forgot that I recommended closing the area to .>
.> .> ALL humans. .> .> .> .> .> .Most people attack are hikers; only a few mt. bikers and
equestrians .> .> .have been attacked. Your argument falls down as it does a poor job .> .>
.explaining the facts. .> .> .> .> I wasn't trying to explain anything. The facts are obvious:
humans were killed .> .> in the park. If they were banned, they wouldn't have been killed in the
park, .> .> nor would the lion. .> . .> .I am willing to take my chances, since there are several
hundred million .> .recreational visitors days a year in California and less than one attack .> .a
year. I don't think I or a cat killed on my behalf will happen .> .anytime to soon. .> .> So you are
willing to risk all of the mountain lions in that park, just so your .> buddies can hike & bike
there? No wonder you aren't into conservation biology: .> you don't CARE about wildlife, only your
own career & pastimes. . .Since I or my buddies will never be attacked by a cougar (your risk of
.being attacked is greater than 1: 100 million; probably more like 1: 700 .or 800 million - there
are 800 million or more recreational visitor days .a year in California alone and less than one
attack a year - in fact we .went from August of 1995 to Nov of 2002 without an attack.)

So why don't you just say it? You are selfish!
===
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]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:09:10 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 07:25:53 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> . .> .> On Thu, 15 Jan 2004 05:26:33 GMT, Rick
Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> .> .> . .> .> . .> .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> . .>
.> .> On 14 Jan 2004 12:23:44 -0800, [email protected] (Jonesy) wrote: .> .> .> .> .> .> ."S o
r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... .> .> .> .> Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> .> .> >
The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .> .> .> .> > my view that (1)
bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces .> .> .> .> {snip} .> .> .> .> .> .> .> .> First
of all, nice header. (Almost true in Miles' recent past.) Can we .> .> .> .> assume you use similar
diligence in all your "research" efforts? .> .> .> . .> .> .> .In this case, I'm sure that some peer
somewhere reviewed it and said,

.> .> .> . .> .> .> .> Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would
.> .> .> .> be equally likely to happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the .> .> .> .>
outrage if it HAD been hikers, and someone suggested they deserved to be .> .> .> .> attacked.) .>
.> .> . .> .> .> .The person wasn't riding a bike at the time of the attack, so .> .> .> .therefore
the cat did attack a hiker. Duh. .> .> .> .> .> .> B.S. He was a mountain biker, which is obvious to
everyone except mountain .> .> .> bikers. .> .> . .> .> .Do you work at being this dumb or is it a
gift from God. .> .> .> .> Am I wrong? .> . .> .Yes! .> .> So he wasn't a mountain biker? You make
no sense. .> .Let's try it more slowly. The issue is not what you think, but what the .cougar
thinks. This is a point I make often to lay groups to talk too.
. See what the lion sees. If the lion had attack a moving cyclist, .then we could argue that the
activity was important to the courgar as it .is what triggered the attack.

I never said that the BIKE makes the cougar more likely to attack. It lets the person cover more
ground, putting him at greater risk, and disturbing more cougars.

The biker was not far up the trail, .within easy walking distance of a 3 yr old, so the activity
did not .place the mt. biker at risk by putting him only where mt. bikers could .reach. He was
where hikers walk daily. So the fact he road his bike to .where he was attack is of little
relevance (except to you - but not the .cougar); the cougar saw an individual crouched not riding.
The guy .might also be a beer drinker, but that had no relevance either, maybe he .played the
cello, I don't know; but the cougar detected the individual .crouching by his bike - end of story.

You are speculating. There were no witnesses. Oh, I forgot, you are a scientist only when
CONVENIENT!
===
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