Mountain Kills Mountain Biker

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:04:06 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .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.

BS. That is called "rarity". Humans rarely stand on their head, but that doesn't make it "abnormal".
You are twisting the word to make it fit what you want to say.

Humans are not prey, .because for whatever reason, cougars do not choose us as prey.

But they just DID, proving you wrong. If we weren't prey, they wouldn't have done so. Now elephant
seals are probably not mountain lion prey. So if one is attacked, THAT might be considered abnormal.

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.

That is a value judgment, used to justify killing them. If humans lived as primitive peoples did, in
mountain lion habitat, I am sure that many more would be attacked and eaten. According to Webster,
"normal" means "occurring naturally". There was nothing unnatural about those attacks.

.> .> 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

Why don't you recommend a book or article making that point.

===
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 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.
>
Empirical findings in Orange County and San Diego have found that cougars avoid developments and
paved roads; but show no real aversion to trails that are used by hikers and yes the dreaded cycles
(mt. bikers, mt. biking, people who use their own power on pedals to move a two wheel vehicle along
a trail - choose whatever definition fits your fancy). Now if you wish to quibble with actual
findings; then find do so based on reviewing their analysis.

If you were to develop a multiple logistic regression model for the purpose of developing a
probability occurrence surface for cougars statewide and incorporated as predictor (independent)
variables vegetation cover, prey density, slope, elevation, habitat patch size, disturbance zones
(such as development), trails - broken out to those only used by hikers and those used by all types
of uses including hikers, bikers, equestrians, guess what you would find (hint see paragraph above).
You would find what has been found by a number of studies over several states. The most important
independent variables for determining high density populations would be prey density, vegetation
cover, and large habitat patch size with little development and few paved roads. The presence of
trails with relatively high human use (the type of user has not been shown to be important) have no
measurable affect on defining good cougar habitat (these findings are derived from empirical data).
Now I know this does not fit your preconceived view of the world, but who cares. First thing you
learn in conducting ecological research is the species define whats important, not the researcher.
In other words, show me an area in Calfiornia that supports large deer population, good cover, with
mt. bikers mt. biking on trails and jeep roads, (including hikers), relatively large in size with
little development and guess what you have a good lion population. Remove the hikers and mt. bikers
riding on mt. bikes on trails and jeep roads (is that clear enough for you), guess what, the cougar
population does not increase. Double the deer population the cougar population will increase
substannially, lower the deer population and they will subsequently decrease.

All in all, you want to keep lions in California, keep large areas relatively free from development
including paved roads and do not stress to much over people using the trail system. Oh by the way,
you known why trail users (hikers, bikers or horse types) don't affect cougars that much, cougars
while they can be active throughout the day are more active from dusk to dawn; usually when the
trails are fairly quite.
> 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.
>
The cougars (and the empirical evidence that has been generated by researchres throughout the west
and Canada) disagree.

> 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.

Coe Park is of sufficient size to measure changes if any in home range size since females in the
Diablo Range have home ranges about 22 to 25 square miles and some occurred completely in the park
some straddled the park and so on. So you are right, there was not differnce in how cougars used the
park vs. surrounding land. As noted above, its the deer and lots of land uncluttered by development
stupid; recreation users are of little concern to cougars. They affect you but not the cat.

> .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.
>
Actually bikes are not banned in National Parks. Bikes can usually ride (mt. bikes, cyclocross, road
bikes) on any road (paved or dirt) that cars can in National Parks. Bikes are banned from trails in
National Parks; I say mt. bikes, because it is rather rare for people to ride road bikes on trails;
they either ride cyclocross or mt. bikes on trails. I am not looking for sympathy, and certainly not
from you, I could care less of what you think.

> .> (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.

If most were in it for a job they would choose a field with much greater compensation. Conservation
biology is simply a sub-discipline of ecology; when I refer to ecologist I am refering to wildlife
ecologist, consveration biologist, ornithologish, herpetologist, etc. I know a number of con bio
types (some you have quoated) who mt. bike. The problem is you have preconceived biases.

> .> .> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> 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!

If you mean not running my life by rare events is selfish, then you not only have to look up the
definition of abnormal, but throw selfish into to that.

I have a greater chance of getting a date with Liv Taylor than attacked by a cougar. Am I being
selfish if I wait at home for Liv to call me?

You simply do not get it. Cougars do not see humans as prey and 99.9% of the time avoid humans; I
have approached within a 200 meters of cougars a few hundred times and never once did they exhibit
an agressive attitude. A researcher in New Nexico approached within 3 to 10 ft of a cougar
attempting to solicit aggessive response and only a handful of times did the cougar ever exhibit
agression. The other times they simply left the area. This was an area that only researchers had
access as it was a military base.

In summary, since I have zero chance (so small that I consider it zero) of being attacked, I will
continue to hike and bike (both road since there are paved roads in good lion habitat - remember
mines road; and mt. bike)in the backcountry.



> ===
> 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 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.

Then a reasonable hypothesis is that bikers would be attack out of proportion to their presence.
When pooled across area and time, we find out that children are more at risk (prey size studid)
and bikers have rarely been attacked; and only one case that I can recall off the top where a
biker was actually on his bike at the time. So your assertion would be true if bikers would being
attacked in very remote places only they can get to - we can only go by what we have, not true,
you are wrong again.

> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:04:06 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .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.
>
> BS. That is called "rarity". Humans rarely stand on their head, but that doesn't make it
> "abnormal". You are twisting the word to make it fit what you want to say.
>
> Humans are not prey, .because for whatever reason, cougars do not choose us as prey.
>
> But they just DID, proving you wrong. If we weren't prey, they wouldn't have done so. Now elephant
> seals are probably not mountain lion prey. So if one is attacked, THAT might be considered
> abnormal.
>
> 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.
>
> That is a value judgment, used to justify killing them. If humans lived as primitive peoples did,
> in mountain lion habitat, I am sure that many more would be attacked and eaten. According to
> Webster, "normal" means "occurring naturally". There was nothing unnatural about those attacks.
>
I noticed you did not quoate abnormal " Not normal; deviant, departing from normal." There is
nothing in the definition that defines that an abnormal event can never occur, in fact rarity is an
important component abnormal, not never. I suggest you read some abnormal psychology.

When an event occurs so seldom, it is defined as departing from normal. Get it.

> .> .> 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

Paul has published in a number of reputable journals, search them out.

> Why don't you recommend a book or article making that point.
>
> ===
> 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 07:52:34 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

You never answered my question: Do you consider conservation biology to be science? If so, then the
conferences I spoke at were scientific conferences, in spite of your claim that they were just for
activists, and unscientific. When you get caught in a lie, you shut up suddenly....

.Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> 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! . .If you mean not running my life by rare events is selfish, then you not
.only have to look up the definition of abnormal, but throw selfish into .to that.

No, you are selfish because you aren't willing to give the animal you claim an interest in (the
cougar) a place to live where it won't be molested by humans, or shot for trying to feed its young.

.I have a greater chance of getting a date with Liv Taylor than attacked .by a cougar. Am I being
selfish if I wait at home for Liv to call me?

No, generous, to stay out of her habitat.

.You simply do not get it. Cougars do not see humans as prey

That was disproved by the recent killing.

and 99.9% .of the time avoid humans; I have approached within a 200 meters of .cougars a few
hundred times and never once did they exhibit an agressive .attitude.

I guess they weren't that hungry. What is YOUR interpretation?

A researcher in New Nexico approached within 3 to 10 ft of a .cougar attempting to solicit
aggessive response and only a handful of .times did the cougar ever exhibit agression. The other
times they .simply left the area. This was an area that only researchers had access .as it was a
military base. . .In summary, since I have zero chance (so small that I consider it zero) .of
being attacked, I will continue to hike and bike (both road since .there are paved roads in good
lion habitat - remember mines road; and .mt. bike)in the backcountry.

Proving that you are just as selfish as people who know NOTHING about mountain lions. One would
think that you would have more consideration for them.
===
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 07:57:15 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:04:06 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .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. .> .> BS. That is called "rarity". Humans rarely stand on their head, but that
doesn't .> make it "abnormal". You are twisting the word to make it fit what you want to .> say. .>
.> Humans are not prey, .> .because for whatever reason, cougars do not choose us as prey. .> .> But
they just DID, proving you wrong. If we weren't prey, they wouldn't have .> done so. Now elephant
seals are probably not mountain lion prey. So if one is .> attacked, THAT might be considered
abnormal. .> .> 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. .> .> That is a
value judgment, used to justify killing them. If humans lived as .> primitive peoples did, in
mountain lion habitat, I am sure that many more would .> be attacked and eaten. According to
Webster, "normal" means "occurring .> naturally". There was nothing unnatural about those attacks.
.> .I noticed you did not quoate abnormal " Not normal; deviant, departing .from normal."

In other words, you have to look up "normal" in order to understand "abnormal", which I did. Why do
I have to explain EVERYTHING for you?

There is nothing in the definition that defines that an .abnormal event can never occur, in fact
rarity is an important component .abnormal, not never. I suggest you read some abnormal
psychology.

I did. "Abnormal" implies rare, but the reverse is not true. Otherwise, we wouldn't need two words!

.When an event occurs so seldom, it is defined as departing from normal. .Get it.

Not true. Humans rarely stand on their heads, but it's not considered abnormal. We rarely eat at
Macdonalds and Denny's on the same day, but that's not considered abnormal. The list of examples
is endless.

.> .> .> 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 . .Paul has published in a
number of reputable journals, search them out. . . .> Why don't you recommend a book or article
making that point.

Interesting that you can't give a single reference supporting your point.... You smell like a fraud.
===
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 08:00:33 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> 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" <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
f.> .> .> .> .> 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. . .Then a reasonable hypothesis is that bikers would be attack out of .proportion to
their presence. When pooled across area and time, we find .out that children are more at risk
(prey size studid) and bikers have .rarely been attacked; and only one case that I can recall off
the top .where a biker was actually on his bike at the time. So your assertion .would be true if
bikers would being attacked in very remote places only .they can get to - we can only go by what
we have, not true, you are .wrong again.

As I said before, you don't have enough data points to make that assertion. Look up "statistical
significance" in the dictionary, or get out the class notes for that class in statistice you
obviously didn't do too well in. Or, more likely, you are deliberately misleading us, in order to
rationaloze doing what you want.

===
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 07:43:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> 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. .> .Empirical findings in Orange County and San Diego have found
that .cougars avoid developments and paved roads; but show no real aversion to .trails that are used
by hikers and yes the dreaded cycles (mt. bikers, .mt. biking, people who use their own power on
pedals to move a two wheel
. vehicle along a trail - choose whatever definition fits your fancy). .Now if you wish to quibble
with actual findings; then find do so based .on reviewing their analysis.

It's irrelevant, because movement isn't the only important factor, but whether they are
inconvenienced in ANY way (prevented from feeding, forced to exert more energy, etc.). Come back
with some relevant data. And cite a reference, if you really are a scientist.

.If you were to develop a multiple logistic regression model for the .purpose of developing a
probability occurrence surface for cougars .statewide and incorporated as predictor (independent)
variables .vegetation cover, prey density, slope, elevation, habitat patch size, .disturbance zones
(such as development), trails - broken out to those .only used by hikers and those used by all types
of uses including .hikers, bikers, equestrians, guess what you would find (hint see .paragraph
above). You would find what has been found by a number of .studies over several states. The most
important independent variables .for determining high density populations would be prey density,

And what affects THAT? Is the presence of humans irrelevant? I doubt it.

.vegetation cover, and large habitat patch size with little development .and few paved roads. The
presence of trails with relatively high human .use (the type of user has not been shown to be
important) have no .measurable affect on defining good cougar habitat (these findings are .derived
from empirical data). Now I know this does not fit your .preconceived view of the world, but who
cares. First thing you learn in .conducting ecological research is the species define whats
important, .not the researcher. In other words, show me an area in Calfiornia that .supports large
deer population, good cover, with mt. bikers mt. biking .on trails and jeep roads, (including
hikers), relatively large in size .with little development and guess what you have a good lion
population.

"Good" in whose eyes? A human's, or the lion's? I smell anthropocentric bias.

. Remove the hikers and mt. bikers riding on mt. bikes on trails and .jeep roads (is that clear
enough for you), guess what, the cougar .population does not increase.

When has the human presence EVER been eliminated? As far as I know, there are NO areas off-limits to
humans. So the "study" is incomplete and inconclusive.

Double the deer population the cougar .population will increase substannially, lower the deer
population and .they will subsequently decrease.

And the presence of humans affects the deer population.

.All in all, you want to keep lions in California, keep large areas .relatively free from
development including paved roads and do not stress .to much over people using the trail system.

You don't know that, because removing people has never been tried! Some "research"!

Oh by the way, you known .why trail users (hikers, bikers or horse types) don't affect cougars
.that much, cougars while they can be active throughout the day .are more active from dusk to
dawn; usually when the trails are fairly quite.

And mountain bikers are out with headlamps.... All the more reason to ban bikes.

.> 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. .> .The
cougars (and the empirical evidence that has been generated by .researchres throughout the west and
Canada) disagree.

It sounds like it has never been properly tested, probably because humans don't WANT to know that
their presence is undesirable.

.> 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. . .Coe Park is of sufficient size to measure changes if
any in home range .size since females in the Diablo Range have home ranges about 22 to 25 .square
miles and some occurred completely in the park some straddled the .park and so on. So you are right,
there was not differnce in how .cougars used the park vs. surrounding land.

You can prove a difference statistically, but you can't prove that two things are the same. That's
how statistics works. You can't claim that there is no difference, only that there is no
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT difference.

As noted above, its the .deer and lots of land uncluttered by development stupid; recreation
.users are of little concern to cougars. They affect you but not the cat. . .> .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. .> .Actually bikes are not banned in National Parks. Bikes can usually ride .(mt. bikes,
cyclocross, road bikes) on any road (paved or dirt) that .cars can in National Parks.

In Yosemite they are alowed only on pavement, according to their website. They are banned on all
unpaved trails.

Bikes are banned from trails in National .Parks; I say mt. bikes, because it is rather rare for
people to ride .road bikes on trails; they either ride cyclocross or mt. bikes on .trails. I am
not looking for sympathy, and certainly not from you, I .could care less of what you think.

Then don't claim that mountain bikers are banned. That statement is fashioned to get sympathy. The
SIGNS say "No Bikes", NOT "No Mountain Bikers". DUH!

.> .> (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.
. .If most were in it for a job they would choose a field with much greater .compensation.
Conservation biology is simply a sub-discipline of .ecology; when I refer to ecologist I am refering
to wildlife ecologist, .consveration biologist, ornithologish, herpetologist, etc. I know a .number
of con bio types (some you have quoated) who mt. bike. The .problem is you have preconceived biases.

No, the problem is that most humans are selfish, whether or not they claim to be conservation
biologists. Or they just haven't thought much about their impacts. Obviously, they are causing
erosion, killing animaps & plants on the trail, & driving wildlife & other humans away.

===
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 Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:52:34 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> You never answered my question: Do you consider conservation biology to be science? If so, then
> the conferences I spoke at were scientific conferences, in spite of your claim that they were just
> for activists, and unscientific. When you get caught in a lie, you shut up suddenly....

If you spoke at the Society for Conservation Biology Conference, then you gave an activist paper (in
other words - you view of life not based on research you conducted, talks I usually skip unless I am
friends with the speaker).

Conservation Biologys is a subdiscpline of ecology, it is based on ecological principles. I bet you
cannot name the first confernece that founded this disapline nor could you name the ecological work
that serves as its signficant underpinning (Hint, two authors from the late 60's).

> .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> 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! . .If you mean not
> running my life by rare events is selfish, then you not .only have to look up the definition of
> abnormal, but throw selfish into .to that.
>
> No, you are selfish because you aren't willing to give the animal you claim an interest in
> (the cougar) a place to live where it won't be molested by humans, or shot for trying to feed
> its young.
>
> .I have a greater chance of getting a date with Liv Taylor than attacked .by a cougar. Am I being
> selfish if I wait at home for Liv to call me?
>
> No, generous, to stay out of her habitat.
>
> .You simply do not get it. Cougars do not see humans as prey
>
> That was disproved by the recent killing.
>
> and 99.9% .of the time avoid humans; I have approached within a 200 meters of .cougars a few
> hundred times and never once did they exhibit an agressive .attitude.
>
> I guess they weren't that hungry. What is YOUR interpretation?
>
> A researcher in New Nexico approached within 3 to 10 ft of a .cougar attempting to solicit
> aggessive response and only a handful of .times did the cougar ever exhibit agression. The other
> times they .simply left the area. This was an area that only researchers had access .as it was a
> military base. . .In summary, since I have zero chance (so small that I consider it zero) .of
> being attacked, I will continue to hike and bike (both road since .there are paved roads in good
> lion habitat - remember mines road; and .mt. bike)in the backcountry.
>
> Proving that you are just as selfish as people who know NOTHING about mountain lions. One would
> think that you would have more consideration for them.
> ===
> 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 Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:57:15 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 04:04:06 GMT, Rick Hopkins
> <[email protected]> wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .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. .> .>
> BS. That is called "rarity". Humans rarely stand on their head, but that doesn't .> make it
> "abnormal". You are twisting the word to make it fit what you want to .> say. .> .> Humans are not
> prey, .> .because for whatever reason, cougars do not choose us as prey. .> .> But they just DID,
> proving you wrong. If we weren't prey, they wouldn't have .> done so. Now elephant seals are
> probably not mountain lion prey. So if one is .> attacked, THAT might be considered abnormal. .>
> .> 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. .> .> That is a value
> judgment, used to justify killing them. If humans lived as .> primitive peoples did, in mountain
> lion habitat, I am sure that many more would .> be attacked and eaten. According to Webster,
> "normal" means "occurring .> naturally". There was nothing unnatural about those attacks. .> .I
> noticed you did not quoate abnormal " Not normal; deviant, departing .from normal."
>
> In other words, you have to look up "normal" in order to understand "abnormal", which I did. Why
> do I have to explain EVERYTHING for you?
>
> There is nothing in the definition that defines that an .abnormal event can never occur, in fact
> rarity is an important component .abnormal, not never. I suggest you read some abnormal
> psychology.
>
> I did. "Abnormal" implies rare, but the reverse is not true. Otherwise, we wouldn't need
> two words!
You lack any capacity to understand the english language. Be that as it may, the most important
point is not the debate of abnormal or normal, but that cougars do not view humans as prey. That is
the consesus of those researchers who have considerable experience study the species.

> .When an event occurs so seldom, it is defined as departing from normal. .Get it.
>
> Not true. Humans rarely stand on their heads, but it's not considered abnormal. We rarely eat at
> Macdonalds and Denny's on the same day, but that's not considered abnormal. The list of examples
> is endless.

Gosh and to think that the founders become gaziillares because no body ate at their establishments.

> .> .> .> 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 .
> .Paul has published in a number of reputable journals, search them out. . . .> Why don't you
> recommend a book or article making that point.
>
> Interesting that you can't give a single reference supporting your point.... You smell like
> a fraud.

The fact that you do not know who Paul is shows you lack any familarity with the species or field of
con bio. The fact you can not find credible scientific publications exposes you as a fraud. I know
the literature well, you clearly are speaking from ignornace.

> ===
> 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 Mon, 19 Jan 2004 08:00:33 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> 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
> f.> .> .> .> .> 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. . .Then a reasonable hypothesis is that bikers would be
> attack out of .proportion to their presence. When pooled across area and time, we find .out that
> children are more at risk (prey size studid) and bikers have .rarely been attacked; and only one
> case that I can recall off the top .where a biker was actually on his bike at the time. So your
> assertion .would be true if bikers would being attacked in very remote places only .they can get
> to - we can only go by what we have, not true, you are .wrong again.
>
> As I said before, you don't have enough data points to make that assertion. Look up "statistical
> significance" in the dictionary, or get out the class notes for that class in statistice you
> obviously didn't do too well in. Or, more likely, you are deliberately misleading us, in order to
> rationaloze doing what you want.

Acutally we have a bit more than 100 or so data points, enough to find trends. And small children
are more at risk (prey size) than are adults; also young subadult cougars (such as the one in this
case) are more likely to be involved then are resident cats. If you new the literature you would
understand this. But again you do not. Hikers not folks on bikes have been more at risk

>
> ===
> 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 Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:43:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> 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. .> .Empirical findings in Orange
> County and San Diego have found that .cougars avoid developments and paved roads; but show no real
> aversion to .trails that are used by hikers and yes the dreaded cycles (mt. bikers, .mt. biking,
> people who use their own power on pedals to move a two wheel
> . vehicle along a trail - choose whatever definition fits your fancy). .Now if you wish to
> quibble with actual findings; then find do so based .on reviewing their analysis.
>
> It's irrelevant, because movement isn't the only important factor, but whether they are
> inconvenienced in ANY way (prevented from feeding, forced to exert more energy, etc.). Come back
> with some relevant data. And cite a reference, if you really are a scientist.
>
Well I should not be too hard on you since the analysis are fairly new (less than a year old and in
press), but the papers have been given at several scientific conferences, including the the rather
significant International Wildlife Conference in New Zealand Dec 2003. Actually Dickson, Jennings,
Beier in press. This study found that cougars in Orange County (including the trail system in
question) avoided paved roads, but used (showed a preference for) dirt roads and trails, more
frequently then by chance. The analysis relied on some significant information collected by Beier in
the 1990s and used ArcInfo to evaluate the preferred habitats. The other findings found that cougars
avoided human dominated landscapes such as development and agricultural areas, and showed a
preference for riparian habitats and oak woodlands. The researchers advocated (you should like this)
to remove paved roads when at all possible, but recommended maintaining a dirt road or trail network
as it facilitated cougar movements in the Orange County landscape.

Other studies across the west while not using such state of the art statistical tools have also
found that trails and dirt roads facilitate cougar movements. Sorry to disappoint you Mike, but
cougars I guess are ill-behaved beast that do not follow your oh so careful script. They like and
use trails and are not particularly bothered by park users.

Oh by the way, researchers from U.C. Advise Walter Boyce, Kenny Logan and Linda Sweanor (these last
two names ought to be real familiar with you if you knew the literature) found that cougars hang out
1000 ft or so from trails during the day in a San Diego State Park (Cuyamuca - where the lady hiker
was killed in 1994) and moved progressively closer as the sun goes down. Guess what SD cougars also
like trails.

> .If you were to develop a multiple logistic regression model for the .purpose of developing a
> probability occurrence surface for cougars .statewide and incorporated as predictor (independent)
> variables .vegetation cover, prey density, slope, elevation, habitat patch size, .disturbance
> zones (such as development), trails - broken out to those .only used by hikers and those used by
> all types of uses including .hikers, bikers, equestrians, guess what you would find (hint see
> .paragraph above). You would find what has been found by a number of .studies over several states.
> The most important independent variables .for determining high density populations would be prey
> density,
>
> And what affects THAT? Is the presence of humans irrelevant? I doubt it.
>
Actually yes, if prey is abundant and habitat is adequate, the presence of humans are not important
at all. In fact cougars purposefully use human trails.

> .vegetation cover, and large habitat patch size with little development .and few paved roads. The
> presence of trails with relatively high human .use (the type of user has not been shown to be
> important) have no .measurable affect on defining good cougar habitat (these findings are .derived
> from empirical data). Now I know this does not fit your .preconceived view of the world, but who
> cares. First thing you learn in .conducting ecological research is the species define whats
> important, .not the researcher. In other words, show me an area in Calfiornia that .supports large
> deer population, good cover, with mt. bikers mt. biking .on trails and jeep roads, (including
> hikers), relatively large in size .with little development and guess what you have a good lion
> population.
>
> "Good" in whose eyes? A human's, or the lion's? I smell anthropocentric bias.
>
I am using population density as my measure, which is the most common way in ecology for measure
quality. An area that supports a lot of something, must be doing something right. If the area
supports only a few or none, I do not care what we think about the quality of the habitat, the
species think it is poor habitat.

> . Remove the hikers and mt. bikers riding on mt. bikes on trails and .jeep roads (is that clear
> enough for you), guess what, the cougar .population does not increase.
>
> When has the human presence EVER been eliminated? As far as I know, there are NO areas off-limits
> to humans. So the "study" is incomplete and inconclusive.

We have areas where humans are less abundant (wilderness areas - Idaho Primitive Wilderness site of
the first long-term lion study - know who did it?; the White Sands Military Base etc. While the
number of humans is not zero that are appreciably lower than Mt. Hamilton or Los Padres National
Forest; and guess what, the significant variable is not human density (assuming of course that we
are considering large undeveloped habitat patches) but deer density. In fact, the cougar density in
Orange County is higher than the Boulder-Escalante area in Utah. Dam few people use the Utah area,
lots of people use the Orange County area
- again you loose. It is not the number of recreational users but the deer that are far more
important.

> Double the deer population the cougar .population will increase substannially, lower the deer
> population and .they will subsequently decrease.
>
> And the presence of humans affects the deer population.

True, housing developments usually result in significant increases in deer. Housing development near
rural areas provide deer that are usually nutritional stressed in summer, a wonderful forage supply.
If you have paid any attention to your own home town, you would be familiar with the deer researcher
that U.C. Berkeley ecologist have done for the City of Kenninsgton, which has a deer population that
is out of control. They are everywhere. You want to see lots of deer, go to any rural urban
interface.
>
> .All in all, you want to keep lions in California, keep large areas .relatively free from
> development including paved roads and do not stress .to much over people using the trail system.
>
> You don't know that, because removing people has never been tried! Some "research"!

Actually if you knew the literature, you would see we do know that. You are a illiterate moron that
operates only on preconceived notions and not inferences driven by empirical research. But I have
revealed nothing new to this group.

> Oh by the way, you known .why trail users (hikers, bikers or horse types) don't affect cougars
> .that much, cougars while they can be active throughout the day .are more active from dusk to
> dawn; usually when the trails are fairly quite.
>
> And mountain bikers are out with headlamps.... All the more reason to ban bikes.
>
> .> 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. .> .The
> cougars (and the empirical evidence that has been generated by .researchres throughout the west
> and Canada) disagree.
>
> It sounds like it has never been properly tested, probably because humans don't WANT to know that
> their presence is undesirable.
>
> .> 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. . .Coe Park is of sufficient size to measure changes
> if any in home range .size since females in the Diablo Range have home ranges about 22 to 25
> .square miles and some occurred completely in the park some straddled the .park and so on. So you
> are right, there was not differnce in how .cougars used the park vs. surrounding land.
>
> You can prove a difference statistically, but you can't prove that two things are the same. That's
> how statistics works. You can't claim that there is no difference, only that there is no
> STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT difference.
>
I infer since I can not find a statistical difference, that the finding is ecologically relevant
(pretty typical in science). Until such time that someone else can disprove my finding or a
prediction from it, it is considered a reasonable explanation of the observable facts. You really
are an idiot. You are just upset that cougars do not act how you think they should. Next thing you
will probably go out and shoot one for misbehaving. Believe me Mike, you have convinced no one of
any sigificance. You have not even read the literature, yet you will debate for days something you
know nothing of. That is the sign of a committed moron.

> As noted above, its the .deer and lots of land uncluttered by development stupid; recreation
> .users are of little concern to cougars. They affect you but not the cat. . .> .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. .> .Actually bikes are not banned in National Parks.
> Bikes can usually ride .(mt. bikes, cyclocross, road bikes) on any road (paved or dirt) that
> .cars can in National Parks.
>
> In Yosemite they are alowed only on pavement, according to their website. They are banned on all
> unpaved trails.

That is what I said above; basically if the NPS allows cars to travel on a road (there are a couple
of dirt roads in Rocky Mt. National Park for instance) than bikes can travel there. Last time I
checked cars were not allowd on unpaved trails in Yosemite.

> Bikes are banned from trails in National .Parks; I say mt. bikes, because it is rather rare for
> people to ride .road bikes on trails; they either ride cyclocross or mt. bikes on .trails. I am
> not looking for sympathy, and certainly not from you, I .could care less of what you think.
>
> Then don't claim that mountain bikers are banned. That statement is fashioned to get sympathy. The
> SIGNS say "No Bikes", NOT "No Mountain Bikers". DUH!

No only morons like you see boogie men where none exists.

> .> .> (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. . .If most were in it for a job they would choose a field with much greater
> .compensation. Conservation biology is simply a sub-discipline of .ecology; when I refer to
> ecologist I am refering to wildlife ecologist, .consveration biologist, ornithologish,
> herpetologist, etc. I know a .number of con bio types (some you have quoated) who mt. bike. The
> .problem is you have preconceived biases.
>
> No, the problem is that most humans are selfish, whether or not they claim to be conservation
> biologists. Or they just haven't thought much about their impacts. Obviously, they are causing
> erosion, killing animaps & plants on the trail, & driving wildlife & other humans away.

Well I would rather associate with my selfish ecological budies than a righteous idiot such
as yourself.

> ===
> 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

 

[Peter H]

Rick Hopkins wrote:

>
> Conservation Biologys is a subdiscpline of ecology, it is based on ecological principles. I bet
> you cannot name the first confernece that founded this disapline nor could you name the ecological
> work that serves as its signficant underpinning (Hint, two authors from the late 60's).
>
Good grief! You wouldn't want the man to cloud the issue with details, would you? That would obviate
99.999...% of his bombast and then what would he do with all that spare time?

Pete H

--
We are all of one nation, all of one creed We are all out of nature, all of one seed
I. Bairnson

 

[Iwhitey]

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;
> 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.
>
> 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.
> ===
> 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

Environmental NAZI.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 03:46:29 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:52:34 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> You never answered my question: Do you consider conservation biology to be .> science?
If so, then the conferences I spoke at were scientific conferences, in .> spite of your claim that
they were just for activists, and unscientific. When .> you get caught in a lie, you shut up
suddenly.... . .If you spoke at the Society for Conservation Biology Conference, then .you gave an
activist paper (in other words - you view of life not based .on research you conducted,

Based on research others have done. What makes it an "activist" paper? Most research papers contain
an "activist" (moral) element. If they didn't, most of the people there wouldn't be interested in
hearing them. "Research" that claims to be unbiased, as yours allegedly is, is a LIE. You obviously
have a STRONG bias, which is to prove that mountan biking and hiking are okay. That's why you make
outlandish claims (e.g. mountain lion density being equal near & away from trails) based on
inadequate sample sizes.

talks I usually skip unless I am friends with .the speaker).

It sounds like you skip anything that doesn't conform to your biases.

.Conservation Biologys is a subdiscpline of ecology, it is based on .ecological principles. I bet
you cannot name the first confernece that .founded this disapline

WHICH discipline? You names two. If you mean ecology, I would guess Odum. But I don't study ancient
history much. I just tell the truth about what I see, something you have yet to do.

nor could you name the ecological work that .serves as its signficant underpinning (Hint, two
authors from the late .60's).

No, but at least I understand what it's about & what its findings are, unlike you. You continue to
pretend that the presence of humans has no effect on wildlife -- something amply refuted in
_Wildlife and Recreationists_.

===
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 Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:48:25 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:43:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
wrote: .> .> . .> . .> .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> .> 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. .> .> .> .Empirical findings in Orange County and San Diego have found that .>
.cougars avoid developments and paved roads; but show no real aversion to .> .trails that are used
by hikers and yes the dreaded cycles (mt. bikers, .> .mt. biking, people who use their own power on
pedals to move a two wheel .> . vehicle along a trail - choose whatever definition fits your fancy).
.> .Now if you wish to quibble with actual findings; then find do so based .> .on reviewing their
analysis. .> .> It's irrelevant, because movement isn't the only important factor, but whether .>
they are inconvenienced in ANY way (prevented from feeding, forced to exert more .> energy, etc.).
Come back with some relevant data. And cite a reference, if you .> really are a scientist. .> .Well
I should not be too hard on you since the analysis are fairly new .(less than a year old and in
press), but the papers have been given at .several scientific conferences, including the the rather
significant .International Wildlife Conference in New Zealand Dec 2003. Actually .Dickson, Jennings,
Beier in press. This study found that cougars in .Orange County (including the trail system in
question) avoided paved .roads, but used (showed a preference for) dirt roads and trails, more
.frequently then by chance. The analysis relied on some significant .information collected by Beier
in the 1990s and used ArcInfo to evaluate
. the preferred habitats. The other findings found that cougars avoided .human dominated landscapes
such as development and agricultural areas, .and showed a preference for riparian habitats and
oak woodlands. The .researchers advocated (you should like this) to remove paved roads when .at
all possible,

That didn't require any research.

but recommended maintaining a dirt road or trail .network as it facilitated cougar movements in the
Orange County landscape.

That's assinine. How arrogant of them to presume to know what's best for mountain lions! And what a
coincidence, that it's the same as what people want! Did they also recommend that the trails have
hikers & mountain bikers on them?

.Other studies across the west while not using such state of the art .statistical tools have also
found that trails and dirt roads facilitate .cougar movements. Sorry to disappoint you Mike, but
cougars I guess are .ill-behaved beast that do not follow your oh so careful script.

You are full of ****. You are making up things, like your comment about "stalking".

They .like and use trails and are not particularly bothered by park users. . .Oh by the way,
researchers from U.C. Advise Walter Boyce, Kenny Logan .and Linda Sweanor (these last two names
ought to be real familiar with .you if you knew the literature) found that cougars hang out 1000 ft
or .so from trails during the day in a San Diego State Park (Cuyamuca - .where the lady hiker was
killed in 1994) and moved progressively closer .as the sun goes down. Guess what SD cougars also
like trails.

Maybe because their prey also use trails -- deer & humans.

.> .If you were to develop a multiple logistic regression model for the .> .purpose of developing a
probability occurrence surface for cougars .> .statewide and incorporated as predictor (independent)
variables .> .vegetation cover, prey density, slope, elevation, habitat patch size, .> .disturbance
zones (such as development), trails - broken out to those .> .only used by hikers and those used by
all types of uses including .> .hikers, bikers, equestrians, guess what you would find (hint see .>
.paragraph above). You would find what has been found by a number of .> .studies over several
states. The most important independent variables .> .for determining high density populations would
be prey density, .> .> And what affects THAT? Is the presence of humans irrelevant? I doubt it. .>
.Actually yes, if prey is abundant and habitat is adequate, the presence .of humans are not
important at all. In fact cougars purposefully use .human trails.

You missed my point, as usual. "THAT" refers to the immediately preceding phrase, "prey density".

.> .vegetation cover, and large habitat patch size with little development .> .and few paved roads.
The presence of trails with relatively high human .> .use (the type of user has not been shown to
be important) have no .> .measurable affect on defining good cougar habitat (these findings are .>
.derived from empirical data). Now I know this does not fit your .> .preconceived view of the
world, but who cares. First thing you learn in .> .conducting ecological research is the species
define whats important, .> .not the researcher. In other words, show me an area in Calfiornia that
.> .supports large deer population, good cover, with mt. bikers mt. biking .> .on trails and jeep
roads, (including hikers), relatively large in size .> .with little development and guess what you
have a good lion population. .> .> "Good" in whose eyes? A human's, or the lion's? I smell
anthropocentric bias. .> .I am using population density as my measure, which is the most common
.way in ecology for measure quality. An area that supports a lot of .something, must be doing
something right.

Again you missed my point. I don't know why I bother writing, when you don't read! What determines
what is "a lot"???????????? You haven't answered that.

I would like to have a comparison of current & pre-Columbian lion densities.

If the area supports only a .few or none, I do not care what we think about the quality of the
.habitat, the species think it is poor habitat.

Maybe something scared them off. You haven't controlled all the variables.

.> . Remove the hikers and mt. bikers riding on mt. bikes on trails and .> .jeep roads (is that
clear enough for you), guess what, the cougar .> .population does not increase. .> .> When has the
human presence EVER been eliminated? As far as I know, there are NO .> areas off-limits to humans.
So the "study" is incomplete and inconclusive. . .We have areas where humans are less abundant
(wilderness areas - Idaho .Primitive Wilderness site of the first long-term lion study - know who
.did it?; the White Sands Military Base etc. While the number of humans .is not zero that are
appreciably lower than Mt. Hamilton or Los Padres .National Forest; and guess what, the significant
variable is not human .density (assuming of course that we are considering large undeveloped
.habitat patches) but deer density. In fact, the cougar density in .Orange County is higher than the
Boulder-Escalante area in Utah. Dam .few people use the Utah area, lots of people use the Orange
County area .- again you loose. It is not the number of recreational users but the .deer that are
far more important.

And the presence of people affects the deer density. . .> Double the deer population the cougar .>
.population will increase substannially, lower the deer population and .> .they will subsequently
decrease. .> .> And the presence of humans affects the deer population. . .True, housing
developments usually result in significant increases in .deer. Housing development near rural areas
provide deer that are .usually nutritional stressed in summer, a wonderful forage supply. If .you
have paid any attention to your own home town, you would be familiar .with the deer researcher that
U.C. Berkeley ecologist have done for the .City of Kenninsgton, which has a deer population that is
out of control.
. They are everywhere. You want to see lots of deer, go to any rural .urban interface.

But not many lions, disproving your claim.

.> .All in all, you want to keep lions in California, keep large areas .> .relatively free from
development including paved roads and do not stress .> .to much over people using the trail system.
.> .> You don't know that, because removing people has never been tried! Some .> "research"! .
.Actually if you knew the literature, you would see we do know that.

Removing all humans has never been tried, because humans are too selfish.

You .are a illiterate moron that operates only on preconceived notions and .not inferences driven
by empirical research. But I have revealed .nothing new to this group.

And your mountain biking is driven not by research, but by your own selfish desires. You are a
scientist only when and insofar as it's convenient.

.> Oh by the way, you known .> .why trail users (hikers, bikers or horse types) don't affect
cougars .> .that much, cougars while they can be active throughout the day .> .are more active from
dusk to dawn; usually when the trails are fairly quite. .> .> And mountain bikers are out with
headlamps.... All the more reason to ban bikes. .> .> .> 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. .> .> .> .The cougars (and the empirical
evidence that has been generated by .> .researchres throughout the west and Canada) disagree. .> .>
It sounds like it has never been properly tested, probably because humans don't .> WANT to know
that their presence is undesirable. .> .> .> 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. .> . .> .Coe Park is of sufficient size to measure changes if any in home range .> .size since
females in the Diablo Range have home ranges about 22 to 25 .> .square miles and some occurred
completely in the park some straddled the .> .park and so on. So you are right, there was not
differnce in how .> .cougars used the park vs. surrounding land. .> .> You can prove a difference
statistically, but you can't prove that two things .> are the same. That's how statistics works.
You can't claim that there is no .> difference, only that there is no STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT
difference. .> .I infer since I can not find a statistical difference, that the finding .is
ecologically relevant (pretty typical in science).

BS. You can't claim equality, only a temportary lack of statistical significance, due to too small a
sample size. You don't interpret your results honestly -- nothing new, for a mountain biker
desperate to justify his selfish, destructive sport.

Until such time .that someone else can disprove my finding or a prediction from it, it is
.considered a reasonable explanation of the observable facts. You really .are an idiot. You are
just upset that cougars do not act how you think .they should. Next thing you will probably go out
and shoot one for .misbehaving. Believe me Mike, you have convinced no one of any .sigificance.
You have not even read the literature, yet you will debate .for days something you know nothing
of. That is the sign of a committed .moron.

I have your words to go on, such as your blatant LIE about mountain bikers being banned from trails.

.> As noted above, its the .> .deer and lots of land uncluttered by development stupid; recreation
.> .users are of little concern to cougars. They affect you but not the cat. .> . .> .> .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. .> .> .>
.Actually bikes are not banned in National Parks. Bikes can usually ride .> .(mt. bikes,
cyclocross, road bikes) on any road (paved or dirt) that .> .cars can in National Parks. .> .> In
Yosemite they are alowed only on pavement, according to their website. They .> are banned on all
unpaved trails. . .That is what I said above; basically if the NPS allows cars to travel on .a road
(there are a couple of dirt roads in Rocky Mt. National Park for .instance) than bikes can travel
there. Last time I checked cars were .not allowd on unpaved trails in Yosemite. . . .> Bikes are
banned from trails in National .> .Parks; I say mt. bikes, because it is rather rare for people to
ride .> .road bikes on trails; they either ride cyclocross or mt. bikes on .> .trails. I am not
looking for sympathy, and certainly not from you, I .> .could care less of what you think. .> .>
Then don't claim that mountain bikers are banned. That statement is fashioned to .> get sympathy.
The SIGNS say "No Bikes", NOT "No Mountain Bikers". DUH! . .No only morons like you see boogie men
where none exists.

I never said any such thing. You fabricate "facts". All I said is that you LIED about mountain
bikers being banned, which is obvious.

.> .> .> (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. .> . .> .If most were in it for a job they would
choose a field with much greater .> .compensation. Conservation biology is simply a sub-discipline
of .> .ecology; when I refer to ecologist I am refering to wildlife ecologist, .> .consveration
biologist, ornithologish, herpetologist, etc. I know a .> .number of con bio types (some you have
quoated) who mt. bike. The .> .problem is you have preconceived biases. .> .> No, the problem is
that most humans are selfish, whether or not they claim to be .> conservation biologists. Or they
just haven't thought much about their impacts. .> Obviously, they are causing erosion, killing
animaps & plants on the trail, & .> driving wildlife & other humans away. . .Well I would rather
associate with my selfish ecological budies than a .righteous idiot such as yourself.

Glad you admit it.
===
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 Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:51:53 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

.Path:.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr29.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!fe8fce9b!not-
for-mail .From: Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .Newsgroups: alt.mountain-
bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,sci.environment,ca.environment .Subject: Re: Mountain Kills
Mountain Biker .Organization: World Without Cars .Message-ID:
<[email protected]> .References:
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> .X-
Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) .MIME-Version: 1.0 .Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=us-ascii .Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit .Lines: 363 .NNTP-Posting-Host:
67.118.253.226 .X-Complaints-To: [email protected] .X-Trace: newssvr29.news.prodigy.com 1074660713
ST000 67.118.253.226 (Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:51:53 EST) .NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:51:53
EST .X-UserInfo1: FKPO@SRD_RSQBQXYKBCD^VX@WB]^PCPDLXUNNHDK@YUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAF-
NTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\BT-
MPLDFNVUQ_VM .Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:51:53 GMT .Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com alt.mountain-
bike:423367 rec.bicycles.soc:140347 rec.backcountry:397744 sci.environment:408874
ca.environment:40049 . .On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:48:25 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
. .. .. ..Mike Vandeman wrote: .. ..> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:43:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins
<[email protected]> wrote: ..> ..> . ..> . ..> .Mike Vandeman wrote: ..> .> 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. ..> .> ..> .Empirical findings in
Orange County and San Diego have found that ..> .cougars avoid developments and paved roads; but
show no real aversion to ..> .trails that are used by hikers and yes the dreaded cycles (mt. bikers,
..> .mt. biking, people who use their own power on pedals to move a two wheel ..> . vehicle along a
trail - choose whatever definition fits your fancy). ..> .Now if you wish to quibble with actual
findings; then find do so based ..> .on reviewing their analysis. ..> ..> It's irrelevant, because
movement isn't the only important factor, but whether ..> they are inconvenienced in ANY way
(prevented from feeding, forced to exert more ..> energy, etc.). Come back with some relevant data.
And cite a reference, if you ..> really are a scientist. ..> ..Well I should not be too hard on you
since the analysis are fairly new ..(less than a year old and in press), but the papers have been
given at ..several scientific conferences, including the the rather significant ..International
Wildlife Conference in New Zealand Dec 2003. Actually ..Dickson, Jennings, Beier in press. This
study found that cougars in ..Orange County (including the trail system in question) avoided paved
..roads, but used (showed a preference for) dirt roads and trails, more ..frequently then by chance.
The analysis relied on some significant ..information collected by Beier in the 1990s and used
ArcInfo to evaluate .. the preferred habitats. The other findings found that cougars avoided ..human
dominated landscapes such as development and agricultural areas, ..and showed a preference for
riparian habitats and oak woodlands. The ..researchers advocated (you should like this) to remove
paved roads when ..at all possible, . .That didn't require any research. .
. but recommended maintaining a dirt road or trail ..network as it facilitated cougar movements in
the Orange County landscape.

I guess I have to teach you scientific method. The only way to say something about the effect of
mountain biking or human presence is to REMOVE the mountain biking preferably for a year or more,
and then remove all human access for a year or preferably more. That would leave the target factor
(mountain biking or human presence) as the only variable. That is never done, bevcause humans are
too selfish to give up access even for a short time.

Comparing different places doesn't control for all the factors in which those places differ, so you
cannot attribute any differences to the factor you are claiming (mountain biking or human presence).
That's why the Experimental Method is superior to your "survey" methods. Your claims are all
suspect, due to not controlling for extraneous variables.

And you also proved that you are a liar (by claiming mountain bikers are banned), so we can't trust
your reports about ANYTHING. Too bad you blew your credibility by trying to defend your sport,
instead of sticking to science.
===
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

 

[Walter]

Midwest BIG Predator Watch

I'm interested in hearing about sightings of black bears, mountain lions, and wolves in Illinois,
Missouri, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Western Kentucky, Southern Wisconsin and anyplace big predators are
not known to inhabit.

If you have a story to tell please let me know. Please list the state, county, and when it was, and
anything else about the encounter. Even it if its second hand information.

Thanks.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MidwestBIGPredatorWatch/

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:51:53 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> .Path:rodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr29.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!fe8fce9b!not-
> for-mail .From: Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .Newsgroups: alt.mountain-
> bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,sci.environment,ca.environment .Subject: Re: Mountain Kills
> Mountain Biker .Organization: World Without Cars .Message-ID:
> <[email protected]> .References:
> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> .X-
> Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American) .MIME-Version: 1.0 .Content-Type:
> text/plain; charset=us-ascii .Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit .Lines: 363 .NNTP-Posting-Host:
> 67.118.253.226 .X-Complaints-To: [email protected] .X-Trace: newssvr29.news.prodigy.com 1074660713
> ST000 67.118.253.226 (Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:51:53 EST) .NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:51:53
> EST .X-UserInfo1: FKPO@SRD_RSQBQXYKBCD^VX@WB]^PCPDLXUNNHDK@YUDUWYAKVUOPCW[ML\JXUCKVFDYZKBMSFX^OMS-
> AFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^C@E[A_CF\AQLD-
> Q\BTMPLDFNVUQ_VM .Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 04:51:53 GMT .Xref: newsmst01.news.prodigy.com alt.mountain-
> bike:423367 rec.bicycles.soc:140347 rec.backcountry:397744 sci.environment:408874
> ca.environment:40049 . .On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 04:48:25 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]>
> wrote: . .. .. ..Mike Vandeman wrote: .. ..> On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 07:43:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins
> <[email protected]> wrote: ..> ..> . ..> . ..> .Mike Vandeman wrote: ..> .> 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. ..> .> ..>
> .Empirical findings in Orange County and San Diego have found that ..> .cougars avoid developments
> and paved roads; but show no real aversion to ..> .trails that are used by hikers and yes the
> dreaded cycles (mt. bikers, ..> .mt. biking, people who use their own power on pedals to move a
> two wheel ..> . vehicle along a trail - choose whatever definition fits your fancy). ..> .Now if
> you wish to quibble with actual findings; then find do so based ..> .on reviewing their analysis.
> ..> ..> It's irrelevant, because movement isn't the only important factor, but whether ..> they
> are inconvenienced in ANY way (prevented from feeding, forced to exert more ..> energy, etc.).
> Come back with some relevant data. And cite a reference, if you ..> really are a scientist. ..>
> ..Well I should not be too hard on you since the analysis are fairly new ..(less than a year old
> and in press), but the papers have been given at ..several scientific conferences, including the
> the rather significant ..International Wildlife Conference in New Zealand Dec 2003. Actually
> ..Dickson, Jennings, Beier in press. This study found that cougars in ..Orange County (including
> the trail system in question) avoided paved ..roads, but used (showed a preference for) dirt roads
> and trails, more ..frequently then by chance. The analysis relied on some significant
> ..information collected by Beier in the 1990s and used ArcInfo to evaluate .. the preferred
> habitats. The other findings found that cougars avoided ..human dominated landscapes such as
> development and agricultural areas, ..and showed a preference for riparian habitats and oak
> woodlands. The ..researchers advocated (you should like this) to remove paved roads when ..at all
> possible, . .That didn't require any research. .
> . but recommended maintaining a dirt road or trail ..network as it facilitated cougar movements in
> the Orange County landscape.
>
> I guess I have to teach you scientific method. The only way to say something about the effect of
> mountain biking or human presence is to REMOVE the mountain biking preferably for a year or more,
> and then remove all human access for a year or preferably more. That would leave the target factor
> (mountain biking or human presence) as the only variable. That is never done, bevcause humans are
> too selfish to give up access even for a short time.
You are on a Mt. Bike or mt. biking kick. Actually you are wrong regarding removing mt. biking or
hiking etc. one can (and we often do) test predictions regarding a treatment affect. The study did
not differentiate trail use, it did not look at mt. biking vs hiking vs anything. It was much
cleaner than that, it should that cougars used the trails out of proportion of their occurrence.
Cougars should a statistical preference for trails. In short the advantages of using the trail
(probably for energetic reasons) far outweitghed any negative encounters of humans. It also showed
that cougars avoided development and agriculural habitats. The study apparently was deemed worthy by
the peer review process of a scientific journal. I guess we scientist are just not as bright as you.

>
> Comparing different places doesn't control for all the factors in which those places differ, so
> you cannot attribute any differences to the factor you are claiming (mountain biking or human
> presence). That's why the Experimental Method is superior to your "survey" methods. Your claims
> are all suspect, due to not controlling for extraneous variables.
>
No it does not control for all of the different factors, but when we combine the studies we have
conducted, and looked across speceis for example at the cat world (and even across taxa and include
wolves), we have ample evidence that the most important factor for a predator is density of
available prey. Cougars are simply not affected by human presence on trails (assuming we are not
cramming 500,000 people into 50 acres -like Disneyland)

> And you also proved that you are a liar (by claiming mountain bikers are banned), so we can't
> trust your reports about ANYTHING. Too bad you blew your credibility by trying to defend your
> sport, instead of sticking to science.

REad my post you nitwit, I said bikes were banned from trails in National Parks (something I believe
we both agreed was correct), I simply noted that since few people ever attempt to ride a road bike
on a trail (and for good reason), the type of bike that is most often affected by this type of ban
is mt. bikes and cyclocross bikes from dirt trails (but the few souls who foolishly attempt to ride
a road bike on a dirt trail would also be banned)

I have ridden and will continue to ride my road bike through many NP. But guess what (since you call
me a mt. biker), as trails are closed to bikes, I will never ride my mt. bike in a NP. so any bike
(which is a mt. bike) I choose to ride off road is banned in a NP. I will let you choose how you
wish to define that since I really don't care how you bastardize the english language.

> 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