Mountain Kills Mountain Biker

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> 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.
>

It is an activist paper (and those are fine for what they are) because you are not a scientist and
have conducted no empirical study of any kind. If you wish to provide your view of the world. Fine
it is your opinion, but that all it is. If you conduct actually research and present that in a peer
reviewed format, then that is a different type of paper.

No most research paper do not contain an activist element. Most research my draw conclusion as to
how best to manage a system, or species, or recommend additional research to get at particular
difficult questions. But it is rare for a scientist to get on their soap box. In fact most scientist
try very hard to seperate themselves from activist elements of an issue. I have been brought in by
several activities organizations to speak to more than half a dozen state legislatures and/or Fish
and Game Commission across the west over the last 25 years, to speak on issues related to scientific
basis of carnivore mangement. And in each case, I make it clear to the ogranization that I do not
represent their points of view, but simply speak to the science of the species and what is the true
ramification of their proposed action. Most of the time the issue centered around issues of sport-
hunting cougars. At no time, did I ever take a philosphical position regarding sport-hunting (as
that would have damaged my credability as a impartial scientific expert; but what have affectively
done over the years is demonstrate that sport hunting is not a tool that reduces conflicts with
humans. Had I taken an activist position, I would have lost all of my affectiveness.

> talks I usually skip unless I am friends with .the speaker).
>
> It sounds like you skip anything that doesn't conform to your biases.
>
No, I am interested in science based studies.

> .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.

My apologies for being unclear. what was the first real conference on conservation biology. and what
study serves as its foundation.

> 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_.

How can you understand it when you do not even know the paper or what is the main thesis of the
paper. You are the prefect example of someone who never reads the classic papers that form the
foundations. You go straight to the activist stuff and never understand the ecological principles
that are at the center of the ideas. You cannot affectively critically review anything, because you
lack the foundation. You are like the guy that wishes to debate Darwin, but have never read Origins
of Species and the Decent of Man.

> ===
> 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]

> .> .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?

They did not presume anything, the cougars provided the evidence by using trails in greater
proportion then the occur on the landscape. You beef is with the cougars not the researchers. You
show your bias. You reached a conclusion without ever evaluating their study. quite a number of
highly respected scientist have reviewed it (several you quote by the way as Gods) and find it
compelling. You opinion means nothing as it comes from an uniformed lay person.

No, they did not evaluate trail users, they simply found that cougars liked to use the trails. Since
virtually all of the trails are available to a multitude of users, there was no opportunity to
seperate out trail users. By the way, cougars use these trails predominated at night. But they
frequently lay-up (based on more than a dozen studies over several western states) within a 0.25 of
a trail. I and other researchers have on hundredes of occassions approached to within 100 to 200
meters of a cougar (that was near a trail) and they remain hidden and never flushed. They must have
a serious belief in their ability to remain undected. On one occassion a cougar did not flush from
behind a large chamise bush until I approached it within 10 ft (I believed it was a 100 yds down the
hill). It simply jumped from behind the bush and ran down the hill where it rested in a large brush
covered ravine, about 250 yds away.

>
> .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".

Let's see, you have never read any of the cougar literature, but you will render an opinion, no not
an opinion, but you will state unequivically the "truth". Hmmm, who I am to put my trust in?

>
> 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

 

[Rick Hopkins]

> 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.

I was responding to your comment that humans don't affect deer populations. But there are numerous
examples that have both deer and cougars, The Sierra Foothills. Go to Oakhurst, the migratory deer
herd has been thwacked seriously by development, but the resident deer populations have gone way up
around the mt. communities and guess what carnivore has followed. There are hundredes of examples
throughout the west - wrong again Mike. I suggest you actually reach the literature on these species
before you continue to show your ignorance.

>
> .> .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.

When I mt. bike it is recreation and not research. I may ride with other researchers, but we cover
lots of subjects from science, politics, beer, and sports. My research interest is the study of
large carinvores and the last decade I have dedicated my time to educating Game and Fish (or Fish
and Game depending on the state) to establish management programs that are science based. Most state
programs are simply politically driven.

> .> 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.
>
That seems a real stretch even for you. I have provided you the results of numerous studies that
contradict your preconceived notions. You are not at all familar with the literature yet you are
will to argue to the death. That is the mark of a fool. Read the literature, note how the studies
were caried out then provide an anslysis of your review. And always be prepared to modify your
orginal position when the weight of the information provides sufficient evidence you are barking up
the wrong tree. Those of us that have studied the cougar have had to modify some of our views
regarding them over the last several decades as more research is conducted. I suspect we will
continue to modify our understanding - that is the true nature of science. You are simply a zeolet,
who is on a mission from God. You have made it clear, you do not need to read the literature, you
understand the species better then those of us who have spent thousands of painstaking days
conducting research. It must be so comforting never having to re-evaluate your positions as new
information is collected. That is way you will never be a scientist.

I think next time I will debate a stone. That has greater capacity for learning.

Rick

 

[Doug Haxton]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:41:11 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>.Murder is *by definition* the unlawful taking of a human life.
>
>No, as "person". That can be an animal. Even a corporation can be a person.

Murder is a legal term. You can't be indicted for murdering a corporation any more than you can be
indicted for murdering a chipmunk.
>.1) The culprit (the lion) returned to the scene of the killing. This .made it likely (though not
>certain) that it was the lion in question.
>
>That's not proof.

You don't *need* proof to kill a non-human animal.
>
>.2) The shooter was right, wasn't he?
>
>No, he was a murderer.

Human remains were found in the stomach of the cat...seems to me he was right...wasn't he?

As to your continued assertion that he was a murderer, I suggest you write to the local DA. I'd be
amused to see the response (if any).

>.>.Here's the thing: you don't need to prove that a non-human animal .>.killed someone...suspicion
>is more than enough. .> .>Says who? . .The law.
>
>Created by humans.

What laws created by non-humans do you suggest we follow?

>.I thought it rather obvious: Because lions aren't people, they aren't .held to the same standards
>as people. While they can't be held liable .for committing a crime, likewise the standards for
>killing them aren't .the same as the standards for killing human beings.
>
>Only because humans are selfish.

Here's a clue for you, Mikey: being a speciest is rational. Treating all animals equally is
irrational.

I've got a little quiz for you.

Suppose I go out and kill the following, while breaking no laws:

1) Antelope
2) Duck
3) Frog
4) Trout
5) Worm

Assume that in all cases I have the required hunting or fishing license. Which of these, if any, do
you consider to be murder?

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

Incorrect. Earlier, you said:

" If a mountain lion kills a human, even if it is just trying to survive, it's considered an
aberration and "murder". "

You are alleging that when a mountain lion eats a human the public at large considers the cat to
be a murderer. Surely, then, you can a find a couple of stories in which the cat is described in
that manner.

Who, *specifically*, has described the cat as a "murderer"? I want a name, or at least a quote from
a news story. I'll be happy to accept a different mountain lion in similar circumstances being
described as a murderer.

Doug

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:42:35 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: .> 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\JXUCK-
VFDYZKBMSFX^OMSAFNTINTDDMVW[X\THOPXZRVOCJTUTPC\_JSBVX\KAOTBAJBVMZTYAKMNLDI_MFDSSOLXINH__FS^\WQGHGI^-
C@E[A_CF\AQLDQ\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.

Irrelevant ad hominem (look those up in the dictionary).

Actually you are wrong .regarding removing mt. biking or hiking etc. one can (and we often do)
.test predictions regarding a treatment affect.

Not unless you make an experimental change, preferably in both directions. The research you cite
doesn't do that, causing it to be full of holes. This is basic Scientific Method -- something you
ignore, because it doesn't support your cause.

The study did not .differentiate trail use, it did not look at mt. biking vs hiking vs .anything.

That is even MORE reason why you can't claim that removing bikes or humans would have no significant
effect! You are DELIBERATELY FALSIFYING your interpretations of the research.

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.

Here is where you misinterpret the results. "Negative encounters with humans" are too rare to get a
statistically significant result. You can't conclude that!

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.

Not as honest. And certainly not as knowledgeable of mathematics! Harvard is the top school for
mathematics IN THE WORLD, or was when I was there.

.> 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.

Now you are changing your story! You didn't mention "the most important factor" before. You simply
said that removing humans or bikes won't have a significant effect! You are drawing unjustifiable
conclusions from the research you are citing.

Cougars are simply not affected by human .presence on trails (assuming we are not cramming 500,000
people into 50 .acres -like Disneyland)

There you go again, making an unjustifiable inference. The research doesn't prove that.

.> 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),

BS. You said that mountain bikers are sometimes banned. That is a bald-faced
LIE. Mountain bikers have NEVER been banned from anywhere, and never will be. How would you TELL who
is a mountain biker???? It is impossible, unless they have a bike with them, so banning bikes
is all that is necessary.

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)

See, there you go again! Banning bikes does NOT ban people, liar.

.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 got straight A's in English, unlike you, who can't even spell. You are just a LIAR.
===
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 Thu, 22 Jan 2004 07:59:20 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Mike Vandeman wrote: . .> 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. .> .
.It is an activist paper (and those are fine for what they are) because .you are not a scientist and
have conducted no empirical study of any .kind.

BS. Science involves more than research. It also includes ANALYSIS of research and drawing
inferences from research. After all, that is what you are doing.

If you wish to provide your view of the world. Fine it is your .opinion, but that all it is.

So is ALL research. Just the opinion of the researcher about the meaning of his/her data.
Hopefully HONEST.

If you conduct actually research and .present that in a peer reviewed format, then that is a
different type of .paper.

Your point? Both are science, or I wouldn't be allowed to present my papers at a scientific
conference.

.No most research paper do not contain an activist element.

That is where you are wrong: INTERPRETATION of results involves value judgments. You are the
proof of that.

Most .research my draw conclusion as to how best to manage a system, or .species, or recommend
additional research to get at particular difficult .questions. But it is rare for a scientist to
get on their soap box. In .fact most scientist try very hard to seperate themselves from activist
.elements of an issue.

BS. Whenever they draw conclusions, they offer opinion. Science is not as rigorous as math, and even
there, there are interpretations & disagreements over implications.

I have been brought in by several activities .organizations to speak to more than half a dozen
state legislatures .and/or Fish and Game Commission across the west over the last 25 years, .to
speak on issues related to scientific basis of carnivore mangement. .And in each case, I make it
clear to the ogranization that I do not .represent their points of view, but simply speak to the
science of the .species and what is the true ramification of their proposed action.

But you are dishonest in how you interpret the research, just as you LIED about mountain bikers
being "banned".

.Most of the time the issue centered around issues of sport-hunting .cougars. At no time, did I ever
take a philosphical position regarding .sport-hunting (as that would have damaged my credability as
a impartial .scientific expert; but what have affectively done over the years is .demonstrate that
sport hunting is not a tool that reduces conflicts with .humans. Had I taken an activist position, I
would have lost all of my .affectiveness.

No, but you might have lost some Effectiveness. Actually being dishonest also reduces your
Effectiveness.

.> talks I usually skip unless I am friends with .> .the speaker). .> .> It sounds like you skip
anything that doesn't conform to your biases. .> .No, I am interested in science based studies.

And in defending mountain biking. I can't think of any other scientist who does that. Interesting!

.> .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. . .My apologies for being
unclear. what was the first real conference on .conservation biology. and what study serves as its
foundation.

I don't know. Enlighten me (via email, in case I miss your post).

.> 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_. . . .How can you understand it
when you do not even know the paper or what is .the main thesis of the paper.

Easy. I read what the experts write, such as Reed Noss, past President of SCB.

You are the prefect example of someone .who never reads the classic papers that form the
foundations.

So what? They aren't the only source of the information, and often not the best.

You go .straight to the activist stuff and never understand the ecological .principles that are at
the center of the ideas. You cannot affectively .critically review anything, because you lack the
foundation. You are .like the guy that wishes to debate Darwin, but have never read Origins .of
Species and the Decent of Man.

Very few people read him, but they still understand evolution.
===
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 Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:13:43 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> .> .> .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? . .They did not presume anything, the cougars provided the
evidence by .using trails in greater proportion then the occur on the landscape. You .beef is with
the cougars not the researchers. You show your bias. You .reached a conclusion without ever
evaluating their study. quite a .number of highly respected scientist have reviewed it (several you
quote .by the way as Gods) and find it compelling. You opinion means nothing .as it comes from an
uniformed lay person.

That's a lie, typical of you. I am not questioning the research, but your biased
INTERPRETATION of it.

.No, they did not evaluate trail users,

Then you were unjustified in drawing conclusions about them!

they simply found that cougars .liked to use the trails. Since virtually all of the trails are
.available to a multitude of users, there was no opportunity to seperate .out trail users. By the
way, cougars use these trails predominated at .night. But they frequently lay-up (based on more
than a dozen studies .over several western states) within a 0.25 of a trail. I and other
.researchers have on hundredes of occassions approached to within 100 to .200 meters of a cougar
(that was near a trail) and they remain hidden .and never flushed. They must have a serious belief
in their ability to .remain undected. On one occassion a cougar did not flush from behind a .large
chamise bush until I approached it within 10 ft (I believed it was .a 100 yds down the hill). It
simply jumped from behind the bush and ran .down the hill where it rested in a large brush covered
ravine, about 250 .yds away. . .> .> .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". . .Let's see, you have never read any of the cougar literature,
but you .will render an opinion, no not an opinion, but you will state .unequivically the "truth".
Hmmm, who I am to put my trust in?

You don't have to trust anything or anyone. You can judge from the data. You don't. You misinterpret
them to draw conclusions that fit your needs. Just as you said mountain bikers are "banned" because
it fits your needs, even though it's a LIE.

===
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 Thu, 22 Jan 2004 08:31:52 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> .> 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. . .I was responding to your comment that humans don't affect deer .populations. But
there are numerous examples that have both deer and .cougars, The Sierra Foothills. Go to Oakhurst,
the migratory deer herd .has been thwacked seriously by development, but the resident deer
.populations have gone way up around the mt. communities and guess what .carnivore has followed.
There are hundredes of examples throughout the .west - wrong again Mike. I suggest you actually
reach the literature on .these species before you continue to show your ignorance.

How do those numbers compare with pre-Columbian numbers?

.> .> .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. . .When I mt. bike it is recreation and not research. I may ride
with .other researchers, but we cover lots of subjects from science, politics, .beer, and sports. My
research interest is the study of large carinvores .and the last decade I have dedicated my time to
educating Game and Fish .(or Fish and Game depending on the state) to establish management .programs
that are science based. Most state programs are simply .politically driven.

But you are also "driven" to rationalize and defend mountain biking, regardless of science.

.> .> 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. .> .That seems a real stretch even for you. I have provided you the results .of numerous
studies that contradict your preconceived notions. You are .not at all familar with the literature
yet you are will to argue to the .death. That is the mark of a fool.

Just like a mountain biker. Avoid talking about the subject and engage in ad hominem attacks as a
diversion.

Read the literature, note how the .studies were caried out then provide an anslysis of your review.

I am going on your reports of it. Are you wrong in your reports?!

And .always be prepared to modify your orginal position when the weight of .the information provides
sufficient evidence you are barking up the .wrong tree.

I am. You haven't provided anything convincing, and you misinterpret results.

Those of us that have studied the cougar have had to modify .some of our views regarding them
over the last several decades as more .research is conducted. I suspect we will continue to
modify our .understanding - that is the true nature of science. You are simply a .zeolet, who is
on a mission from God.

And you are a LIAR. You know nothing of me, or what I think of "God". You fabricate "facts".

You have made it clear, you do .not need to read the literature, you understand the species better
then .those of us who have spent thousands of painstaking days conducting .research.

You are lying again. I am judging from your reports.

It must be so comforting never having to re-evaluate your .positions as new information is
collected. That is way you will never .be a scientist. . .I think next time I will debate a stone.
That has greater capacity for .learning.

It sounds like you are Projecting, as we say in Psychology (describing yourself). Whenever I prove
you wrong, or you are in over your head, you either
(1) run away with your tail between your legs or (2) start attacking me.... Interesting. But typical
of mountain bikers and other LIARS.

.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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 17:42:22 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 05:41:11 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . . .>.Murder is *by
definition* the unlawful taking of a human life. .> .>No, as "person". That can be an animal. Even a
corporation can be a person. . .Murder is a legal term.

Nonsense. It is also just a word in the English language. You can't legislate English, just for your
own convenience.

You can't be indicted for murdering a .corporation any more than you can be indicted for murdering
a .chipmunk.

I never said you could. That's irelevant. It's still murder.

.>.1) The culprit (the lion) returned to the scene of the killing. This .>.made it likely (though
not certain) that it was the lion in question. .> .>That's not proof. . .You don't *need* proof to
kill a non-human animal.

But you DO, to convince people that it was just. It wasn't.

.> .>.2) The shooter was right, wasn't he? .> .>No, he was a murderer. . .Human remains were found
in the stomach of the cat...seems to me he .was right...wasn't he?

Right that the lion ate a human, but not right in killing it.

.As to your continued assertion that he was a murderer, I suggest you .write to the local DA. I'd be
amused to see the response (if any).

The Justice Department isn't even fair to HUMANS, much less wildlife.

.>.>.Here's the thing: you don't need to prove that a non-human animal .>.>.killed
someone...suspicion is more than enough. .>.> .>.>Says who? .>. .>.The law. .> .>Created by humans.
. .What laws created by non-humans do you suggest we follow?

The Endangered Species Act (the spirit, as well as the letter).

.>.I thought it rather obvious: Because lions aren't people, they aren't .>.held to the same
standards as people. While they can't be held liable .>.for committing a crime, likewise the
standards for killing them aren't .>.the same as the standards for killing human beings. .> .>Only
because humans are selfish. . .Here's a clue for you, Mikey: being a speciest is rational. Treating
.all animals equally is irrational.

Only if you assume that winning is the only thing that's important.

.I've got a little quiz for you. . .Suppose I go out and kill the following, while breaking no laws:
. .1) Antelope .2) Duck .3) Frog .4) Trout .5) Worm . .Assume that in all cases I have the required
hunting or fishing .license. Which of these, if any, do you consider to be murder?

All of them.

.>.Not as far as I can tell. Please be specific: who has described this .>.cat as a "murderer"? Be
sure to provide a link. .> .>I just did. . .Incorrect. Earlier, you said: . ." If a mountain lion
kills a human, even if it is just trying to .survive, it's considered an aberration and "murder". "

Proved by the fact that we executed it.

.You are alleging that when a mountain lion eats a human the public at .large considers the cat to
be a murderer. Surely, then, you can a .find a couple of stories in which the cat is described in
that manner.

Not in those words, but the meaning is the same. That's why we killed it.

.Who, *specifically*, has described the cat as a "murderer"?

It is implied by the way we talk about it, regardless of what words they use.

I want a .name, or at least a quote from a news story. I'll be happy to accept .a different
mountain lion in similar circumstances being described as .a murderer. . .Doug

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Doug Haxton]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:46:27 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]>
wrote:

>.Murder is a legal term.
>
>Nonsense. It is also just a word in the English language. You can't legislate English, just for
>your own convenience.

I agree completely. Here's the definition from www.dictionary.com

"The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Hm...seems to me that I'm the one using the term correctly, not you.
>
> You can't be indicted for murdering a .corporation any more than you can be indicted for
> murdering a .chipmunk.
>
>I never said you could. That's irelevant. It's still murder.

Not according to:

1) The law
2) The dictionary
3) The overwhelming majority of people

I just cited who agrees with me.

Who agrees with you?
>
>.>.1) The culprit (the lion) returned to the scene of the killing. This .>.made it likely (though
>not certain) that it was the lion in question. .> .>That's not proof. . .You don't *need* proof to
>kill a non-human animal.
>
>But you DO, to convince people that it was just. It wasn't.

Are you asserting that "people" don't think that killing the mountain lion in question was just? I'd
be shocked to learn that more than 5% of people in general disagreed with killing this cat.

Still, I'm willing to be persuaded. By all means, please cite evidence that a substantial number of
people disagree with the killing of this cat.

>.>.2) The shooter was right, wasn't he? .> .>No, he was a murderer. . .Human remains were found in
>the stomach of the cat...seems to me he .was right...wasn't he?
>
>Right that the lion ate a human, but not right in killing it.

Ah, so he *was* right in concluding that the cat was a mankiller.
>
>.As to your continued assertion that he was a murderer, I suggest you .write to the local DA. I'd
>be amused to see the response (if any).
>
>The Justice Department isn't even fair to HUMANS, much less wildlife.

If you truly feel that way, it must fill you with despair.

What do you plan to do about it (beyond trolling on rec.bicycles.soc)?

>.What laws created by non-humans do you suggest we follow?
>
>The Endangered Species Act (the spirit, as well as the letter).

The Endangered Species Act (letter and spirit) was authored by non-humans? Fascinating!

Documentation, please?

In any case, check this out, from the text of the ESA:: http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html

"(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no civil penalty shall be imposed if it can be
shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed an act based on a good faith
belief that he was acting to protect himself or herself, a member of his or her family, or any other
individual from bodily harm, from any endangered or threatened species."

In other words, it's just peachy to kill *any* endangered animal if it's done to protect humans. So
by all means, please enforce the ESA.

What other laws do you suggest we follow? I really liked this one!
>.Here's a clue for you, Mikey: being a speciest is rational. Treating .all animals equally is
>irrational.
>
>Only if you assume that winning is the only thing that's important.

If you describe saving human lives at the expense of non-human lives as "winning", then yes...it's
very important.

>.Suppose I go out and kill the following, while breaking no laws: . .1) Antelope .2) Duck .3) Frog
>.4) Trout .5) Worm . .Assume that in all cases I have the required hunting or fishing .license.
>Which of these, if any, do you consider to be murder?
>
>All of them.

Intriguing...tell me, what should the penalty be for catching a fish and eating it?

BTW...does killing *any* animal qualify as murder? Specifically, what about an insect?

A germ?

A virus?
>
>.>.Not as far as I can tell. Please be specific: who has described this .>.cat as a "murderer"? Be
>sure to provide a link. .> .>I just did. . .Incorrect. Earlier, you said: . ." If a mountain lion
>kills a human, even if it is just trying to .survive, it's considered an aberration and "murder". "
>
>Proved by the fact that we executed it.

Actually, execution is by definition the killing of a *human*. Since the lion's not human....well,
I'm sure you can reach the logical conclusion.

Or not, sadly.
>
>.You are alleging that when a mountain lion eats a human the public at .large considers the cat to
>be a murderer. Surely, then, you can a .find a couple of stories in which the cat is described in
>that manner.
>
>Not in those words, but the meaning is the same. That's why we killed it.
>
>.Who, *specifically*, has described the cat as a "murderer"?
>
>It is implied by the way we talk about it, regardless of what words they use.

Ah, so you *can't* cite a single instance. Good of you to admit it.

Let me get this straight: you're saying that people imply things through the use of words... but
that the words used are irrelevant?

Don't make me look up the definition of the word "imply". I've got a dictionary and I'm not afraid
to use it!

One last question: who's your favorite movie character?

I'm guessing that it's Vizzini. Am I right?

Doug

 

[rhopkins]

On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> That is even MORE reason why you can't claim that removing bikes or humans would have no
> significant effect! You are DELIBERATELY FALSIFYING your interpretations of the research.

No, the study found that trails were used by cougars out of proportion to their occurrence in their
home range, the actual use of the trail by humans did not deter them from using the trail system.
Had cougars used some trails and not others (which was not the case), then it would be interesting
to test, what was different about the trails. But since the study found no such response by cougars,
then it is not relevant to test whether or not bikes vs. hikers affected cougars. Cougars show a
preference for these trails in their given state. If we pulled humans and removed the trails, then
we would be moving a feature the cougars like.

> 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 outweighed any negative .encounters of humans.
>
> Here is where you misinterpret the results. "Negative encounters with humans" are too rare to get
> a statistically significant result. You can't conclude that!

My apogees for not being clearer, negative encounters refer to adverse reaction to humans (energetic
cost) to the point they actually avoid the trails, like we know they do with developed areas and
agricultural zones.

> Not as honest.

Again, you take exception with studies and species (cougar and deer) you know nothing about and have
not read any of the relevant literature on the species. How honest is that?

>And certainly not as knowledgeable of mathematics! Harvard is the top school for mathematics IN THE
>WORLD, or was when I was there.

Wonderful, and completely irrelevant in this discussion. Harvard also has a highly respective
Comparative Religion program and that is as relevant as your mathematics comment.

> No it does not control for all of the different factors, but when we .combine the studies we have
> conducted, and looked across species 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.
>
> Now you are changing your story! You didn't mention "the most important factor" before. You simply
> said that removing humans or bikes won't have a significant effect! You are drawing unjustifiable
> conclusions from the research you are citing.

Again, you are unable to thing geometrically. I have said all along, the most important factor(s)
for determining if you have a large and healthy populations of cougars is you need prey and you need
large undeveloped areas. What I said was that the varying abundance of humans recreating in these
areas (some areas have high human use and some have modest to low human use) explains very little of
the variation we observe in multiple lion populations across their range (read that as all of North
America). In other words, you have prey and large areas you have cougars. You throw humans walking,
hiking, running, biking, walking their bike, fixing their bike, stopping for lunch, fixing a flat,
horse back riding, walking their horse, taking a **** (both horse and rider), etc. figures very
little into determing the size of the cougar population. You have such a heavy filter on you are
unable to get it. If humans trail use (including type of trail use - hiker, horse back rider, biker)
explained the variation, then we would see a strong correlation with high human use and relatively
low to modest populations of cougars. That is not what we see. Some parks with high human use
(including mt. bikes) have low to modest numbers of cougars, while other parks with high human use
have very high number of cougars. Assuming we are talking similarly large areas (hold the area
affect constant), the main factor that will determine the number of cougars is the size of the prey
population. Tigers which are several times larger than cougars (i.e., they have higher absolute
metabolic requirements and much eat considerable more meat to stay alive and reproduce)support
population densities that are several times greater than cougars in Sri Lanka and India; and these
are in areas make Orange County seem like a wilderness area. Again, the productivity of rainforest
when compared to oak woodlands is the key. Not the mere presence of people. People are the problem
for cougars when they develop (remove an animals ability to make a living) and that includes criss
crossing their habitat areas with paved roads, developing residential areas and fragmenting areas.
For example, the Santa Monica Mitts. may be too small to support a viable cougar populations. Its
not trail users, its the fact we over developed the area and cut off any reasonable landscape
linkages (primarily to the north in case - Los Padres National Forest), so new cougars are unable to
move in. This population is ripe for demographic extinction.

> There you go again, making an unjustifiable inference. The research doesn't prove that.

This research and others build a fairly convincing story that human trail use is not the culprit
for cougars.

Science never proves anything, mathematics may prove things, but science does not. We disprove
hypothesis. Failure to disprove a hypothesis means that we accept it until such time that portions
or all of it are disproved, then we modify the operating paradigm to accommodate new information.
You should try it sometime.

> 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.

> See, there you go again! Banning bikes does NOT ban people, liar.

You need to read what I said, while I will not be so childish as to call you a liar (look up the
definition) you certainly have a serious problem in over interpreting peoples comments; again and
more slowly. I never said that NPS banned people, I said that they banned bikes (and the bikes
mostly affected are bikes that are designed to travel in the dirt - this is a factual statement,
only a fool would argue other wise) from trails and roads that cars are not permitted. Since
Yosemite gets over 3.5 million people ever year, If they were trying to ban people they have done a
rather poor job of it.

So tell me what part of the above paragraph is factually incorrect. While I have and will continue
to ride my road bike in NPs (I can assume that is a clear statement that NPS does not ban people
since I just noted I ride through many of our NP on a road bike, but I guess that simply slipped by
you), I will never ride my mt. bike in a NP because the park bans bikes on the dirt trails. From
this you concluded I said people were banned, that is even a stretch for you. Your assessment of
what I said is completly wrong; as I noted I regularly ride through NP on a ROAD BIKE unless I ride
remotely (via computer), it is hard to make the case I claimed people were banned.

Did you bribe your professors in English?

> .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 got straight A's in English, unlike you, who can't even spell. You are just a LIAR.

 

[rhopkins]

On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Andean <[email protected]> wrote:

> .It is an activist paper (and those are fine for what they are) because .you are not a scientist
> and have conducted no empirical study of any .kind.
>
> BS. Science involves more than research. It also includes ANALYSIS of research and drawing
> inferences from research. After all, that is what you are doing.

Well, my test is more stringent. Could you get an advanced degree not conducting original research
in any field of ecology from a credible institution? The answer is no.

> If you wish to provide your view of the world. Fine it is your .opinion, but that all it is.
>
> So is ALL research. Just the opinion of the researcher about the meaning of his/her data.
> Hopefully HONEST.

While reason is a part of any paper, a scientific paper is one that the discussion is based on the
empirical data collected to test predictions or hypotheses for that paper.

Now there are some classic examples of review articles usually taken on by significant scientist in
a sub discipline, that review a topic, such as foraging theory, predation theory, the phenomenon of
cyclic behavior of microtine rodent populations, etc. in search of some unifying principles. But
when activist take on the same exercise, it is for a different purpose. They are attempting to
evaluate the views of scientist for their own purpose. Often times activists take positions that the
original researchers find a stretch or out right bastardization of their work. These papers usually
are not accepted by peer review journals, as they do not meet the stringent test applied by these
journals. These are activist examples and often are published by those groups as white papers.

> Your point? Both are science, or I wouldn't be allowed to present my papers at a scientific
> conference.

Unlike most scientific societies, Con Bios accepts activist papers. For most meetings (their are a
few notable examples) the standards for accepting a paper to present at a conference is are you a
warm body and does your abstract fit generally in a session. Societies weed out some talks if there
is no room left in the session. But if they can accommodate you they usually do (in other words the
rejection rate is low). Now if the Society contacted you and invited you to give a paper, then that
is considered more prestigious than simply giving a paper. In other words they do not appoint an
editor and two reviewers to determine if your paper merits inclusion.

Now submitting to a journal is a different story. You first have to pass muster with the editorial
staff and if they think it meets the journals basic requirements, then they send it off to two
anonymous reviewers. These reviewers make comments and either recommend outright rejection,
acceptance with major revisions or acceptance with minor revisions. That is why it takes on average
of two years from date of submittal for a paper to be published in a reputable journal. Some papers
are considered so important and are fast tracked, but examples of those are relatively rare - most
often in the medical field, where breakthroughs are important to read about now.

So do not get to big a head about giving a paper. Its a nice experience; you judge the worth of the
paper not by the fact that you gave it (being alive is the key attribute) but more by the reaction
of your peers. Was it unique, well thought of, etc.

> BS. Whenever they draw conclusions, they offer opinion. Science is not as rigorous as math, and
> even there, there are interpretations & disagreements over implications.

They are both rigorous fields, science has more opportunity to debate nuances of the findings then
math. Scientist generally offer opinion about their studies, they rarely take the role of being an
activist. They may serve on the scientific advisory board of an activist organization, but they
provide the scientific foundation for what the organization advocates; positions that most sound
activist organizations take are based good science, but have mixed in a significant amount of
philosophy. In other words, two individuals may take the same science, interpret it the same, but
take too different positions because the underlying philosophy of both organizations is 180 degrees
different.

> But you are dishonest in how you interpret the research, just as you LIED about mountain bikers
> being "banned".

That is your opinion and given the number of times my expertise is called on I can safely say these
environmental organizations soundly disagree with you.

> No, but you might have lost some Effectiveness.

Thanks for the correction.

Actually being dishonest also reduces your Effectiveness.

You do not even know the positions I took or the arguments I took. So your analysis is simply based
on no information, something you are quite good at. Since on several of these occasions I was able
to demonstrate to the legal body that the motivation behind the proposed action was political and
failed to take into account the best available scientific information of the species, I think I was
quiet effective. In fact I am going to another western state next week and anther state the
beginning of Feb, to work with that Game Agency to encourage management programs based not on
politics but science. So I guess I must be really un effective for enviros to pay my way out.

> .No, I am interested in science based studies.
>
> And in defending mountain biking. I can't think of any other scientist who does that. Interesting!

You failed to read my other posts. There is no present evidence (and in fact a substantial body of
evidence to the contrary) that mt. biking does adversely affects cougars. If you wish to conclude by
noting that (and something the virtually the entire field of biologist accepts) I defend mt. biking
so be it. I actually said there is not evidence that the activity affects cougars in an adverse way.
Its that prove-disprove thing again. And since you have yet to read one article on the species, you
cannot believe that anyone takes you seriously.

You may as well hold a bible, stand on a street corner and scream everyone is going to hell who does
not think like me. its the same thing.

> My apologies for being unclear. what was the first real conference on .conservation biology. and
> what study serves as its foundation.
>
> I don't know. Enlighten me (via email, in case I miss your post).

First real conference was the Conservation of Biology conference held in 1978 at UC San Diego, the
book Conservation Biology: An evolutionary-ecological perspective (1980 Sinauer Associates), was the
book that was generated from this conference.

Your failure to understand the ecological roots and foundation of this subdiscpline is not at all
uncommon with activist. You are on a mission, not really that interested in the science. The science
is only relevant to you as long as you do not have to change your mind. Your view that any contrary
information is put forth by dishonest, lying selfish scientist. I guess we all forgot you are simply
so much brighter then the rest of us that you do not even have to read the most significant papers
of our field to render judgment.

read MacArthur and Wilson's 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography, Princeton University press this
is the underlying principle of conservation biology.

> Easy. I read what the experts write, such as Reed Noss, past President of SCB.

Have you also read Dennis Murphy's papers also past president of SCB which often differ
significantly with Noss. Good science is debate, any field of science that digresses into a group
hug is a dead field.

> ou are the prefect example of someone .who never reads the classic papers that form the
> foundations.
>
> So what? They aren't the only source of the information, and often not the best.

If you were a scientist you would have never just made a bonehead argument like that. Often times
authors take approaches that deviate from the foundation they are building on. if they describe why,
fine - you can choose to disagree or accept their arguements, but sometimes they simply get it
wrong. If you are not familar with the foundation, then you will blithely accept something that may
be fundamentally flawed.

Rick

 

[Peter H]

Doug Haxton wrote:

>Still, I'm willing to be persuaded. By all means, please cite evidence ......
>
Mike seldom, if ever, cites evidence. The simplest inference would be that he doesn't have any.

Pete H

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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 20:29:30 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

. . .On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote: . .> That is even MORE reason why
you can't claim that removing bikes or humans .> would .> have no significant effect! You are
DELIBERATELY FALSIFYING your .> interpretations .> of the research. . .No, the study found that
trails were used by cougars out of proportion to .their occurrence in their home range, the actual
use of the trail by humans .did not deter them from using the trail system.

That doesn't imply that the humans had no significant effect on the lions, which you claimed.

Had cougars used some .trails and not others (which was not the case), then it would be
interesting .to test, what was different about the trails. But since the study found no .such
response by cougars, then it is not relevant to test whether or not .bikes vs. hikers
affected cougars.

Especially since the researchers apparently didn't want to know. The implications (that humans
shouldn't be allowed there) are too much for them. And you.

Cougars show a preference for these .trails in their given state.

Probably because they can move quietly on them.

If we pulled humans and removed the trails, .then we would be moving a feature the cougars like.

Which doesn't have much relation to what is good for them.

.> 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 outweighed any negative .> .encounters
of humans. .> .> Here is where you misinterpret the results. "Negative encounters with .> humans"
are too rare to get a statistically significant result. You can't .> conclude .> that! . .My
apogees for not being clearer, negative encounters refer to adverse .reaction to humans (energetic
cost) to the point they actually avoid the .trails, like we know they do with developed areas and
agricultural zones.

And I repeat: you don't have enough encounters to make any assertion about that.

.> Not as honest. . .Again, you take exception with studies and species (cougar and deer) you .know
nothing about and have not read any of the relevant literature on the .species. How honest is that?

You are lying again. I only took exception to your interpretation of the studies, based on my
knowledge of scientific method.

.>And certainly not as knowledgeable of mathematics! Harvard .> is the top school for mathematics IN
THE WORLD, or was when I was there. . .Wonderful, and completely irrelevant in this discussion.
.Harvard also has a highly respective Comparative Religion program and that .is as relevant as your
mathematics comment.

You are right that Comparative Religion is not relevant (well, your unwavering, irrational belief in
mountain biking actually seems quite "religious"), but math certainly is, because it is the
foundation for (or includes) statistics, which you don't use properly.

.> No it does not control for all of the different factors, but when we .> .combine the studies we
have conducted, and looked across species 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. .> .> Now you are changing your story! You didn't mention "the most
important .> factor" before. You simply said that removing humans or bikes won't have a .>
significant effect! You are drawing unjustifiable conclusions from the .> research you .> are
citing. . .Again, you are unable to thing geometrically. I have said all along, the .most important
factor(s) for determining if you have a large and healthy .populations of cougars is you need prey
and you need large undeveloped .areas. What I said was that the varying abundance of humans
recreating in .these areas (some areas have high human use and some have modest to low .human use)
explains very little of the variation we observe in multiple lion .populations across their range
(read that as all of North America).

But I was talking about removing bikes or humans completely. Since that has never been tested, you
can't claim to know anything about it, except SPECULATION.

In .other words, you have prey and large areas you have cougars. You throw .humans walking,
hiking, running, biking, walking their bike, fixing their .bike, stopping for lunch, fixing a
flat, horse back riding, walking their .horse, taking a **** (both horse and rider), etc. figures
very little into .determing the size of the cougar population.

I know you believe that, because you said so. But you don;t have the science to prove it. It is just
an opinion.

You have such a heavy filter
.on you are unable to get it.

Horseshit. I understand perfectly how you twist science to your own ends. But you aren't in an
academic setting, so there's no one likely to correct you.

If humans trail use (including type of trail .use - hiker, horse back rider, biker) explained the
variation,

I didn't mention lion density. I simply said that human presence negatively impacts the lions. You
dispute that, but without the necessary science. You are full of hot air.

then we would .see a strong correlation with high human use and relatively low to modest
.populations of cougars. That is not what we see. Some parks with high .human use (including mt.
bikes) have low to modest numbers of cougars, while .other parks with high human use have very high
number of cougars.

"Low" and "high" are relative. They are all low, probably, compared to pre-Columbian numbers.

Assuming .we are talking similarly large areas (hold the area affect constant), the .main factor
that will determine the number of cougars is the size of the .prey population. Tigers which are
several times larger than cougars (i.e., .they have higher absolute metabolic requirements and
much eat considerable .more meat to stay alive and reproduce)support population densities that are
.several times greater than cougars in Sri Lanka and India; and these are in .areas make Orange
County seem like a wilderness area. Again, the .productivity of rainforest when compared to oak
woodlands is the key. Not .the mere presence of people. People are the problem for cougars when
they .develop (remove an animals ability to make a living) and that includes criss .crossing their
habitat areas with paved roads, developing residential areas .and fragmenting areas. For example,
the Santa Monica Mitts. may be too .small to support a viable cougar populations. Its not trail
users, its the .fact we over developed the area and cut off any reasonable landscape .linkages
(primarily to the north in case - Los Padres National Forest), so .new cougars are unable to move
in. This population is ripe for demographic .extinction. . . .> There you go again, making an
unjustifiable inference. The research .> doesn't prove that. . .This research and others build a
fairly convincing story that human trail .use is not the culprit for cougars.

Convincing to some, but not all.

.Science never proves anything, mathematics may prove things, but science .does not. We disprove
hypothesis. Failure to disprove a hypothesis means .that we accept it until such time that portions
or all of it are disproved, .then we modify the operating paradigm to accommodate new information.
You .should try it sometime.

You have never even TESTED the hypothesis that human presence negatively impacts lions, because to
do it properly would require removing all humans.

.> 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. . .> See, there you go again! Banning bikes does NOT ban people, liar. . .You need to read
what I said, while I will not be so childish as to call you .a liar (look up the definition) you
certainly have a serious problem in over .interpreting peoples comments; again and more slowly. I
never said that NPS .banned people,

It was in an earlier conversation, NOT about national parks. Go back and look, if you care. You KNOW
you said it.

I said that they banned bikes (and the bikes mostly affected .are bikes that are designed to travel
in the dirt - this is a factual .statement, only a fool would argue other wise) from trails and
roads that .cars are not permitted. Since Yosemite gets over 3.5 million people ever .year, If they
were trying to ban people they have done a rather poor job of .it. . .So tell me what part of the
above paragraph is factually incorrect. While I .have and will continue to ride my road bike in NPs
(I can assume that is a .clear statement that NPS does not ban people since I just noted I ride
.through many of our NP on a road bike, but I guess that simply slipped by .you), I will never ride
my mt. bike in a NP because the park bans bikes on .the dirt trails. From this you concluded I said
people were banned, that is .even a stretch for you. Your assessment of what I said is completly
wrong; .as I noted I regularly ride through NP on a ROAD BIKE unless I ride remotely .(via
computer), it is hard to make the case I claimed people were banned.

I can't tell from that paragraph. You may have edited it out.

.Did you bribe your professors in English?

You sure play fast and loose with facts. No wonder you aren't working at a university.
===
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 Fri, 23 Jan 2004 21:37:03 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

. .On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Andean <[email protected]> wrote: . .> .It is an activist paper (and those
are fine for what they are) because .> .you are not a scientist and have conducted no empirical
study of any .> .kind. .> .> BS. Science involves more than research. It also includes ANALYSIS of
.> research and drawing inferences from research. After all, that is what .> you are .> doing. .
.Well, my test is more stringent. Could you get an advanced degree not .conducting original research
in any field of ecology from a credible .institution? The answer is no.

I did research in Psychology, where I got my doctorate. But analysis is still part of science. You
certaingly do it, though poorly (as many things are done, when done for MONEY).

.> If you wish to provide your view of the world. Fine it is your .> .opinion, but that all it
is. .> .> So is ALL research. Just the opinion of the researcher about the meaning .> of his/her
data. Hopefully HONEST. . .While reason is a part of any paper, a scientific paper is one that
the .discussion is based on the empirical data collected to test predictions or .hypotheses for
that paper.

BS. That is only one kind of scientific paper. There are also review papers, etc.

.Now there are some classic examples of review articles usually taken on by .significant scientist
in a sub discipline, that review a topic, such as .foraging theory, predation theory, the phenomenon
of cyclic behavior of .microtine rodent populations, etc. in search of some unifying principles.
.But when activist take on the same exercise, it is for a different purpose. .They are attempting to
evaluate the views of scientist for their own .purpose.

And scientists don't have purposes? You amply disproved that already.

Often times activists take positions that the original researchers .find a stretch or out right
bastardization of their work. These papers .usually are not accepted by peer review journals, as
they do not meet the .stringent test applied by these journals. These are activist examples and
.often are published by those groups as white papers.

Conference papers are also peer-reviewed.

.> Your point? Both are science, or I wouldn't be allowed to present my .> papers at a scientific
conference. . .Unlike most scientific societies, Con Bios accepts activist papers. For .most
meetings (their are a few notable examples) the standards for accepting .a paper to present at a
conference is are you a warm body and does your .abstract fit generally in a session.

BS.

Societies weed out some talks if there .is no room left in the session. But if they can accommodate
you they .usually do (in other words the rejection rate is low). Now if the Society .contacted you
and invited you to give a paper, then that is considered more .prestigious than simply giving a
paper. In other words they do not appoint .an editor and two reviewers to determine if your paper
merits inclusion.

Abstracts are reviewed by a committee of scientists. If you are trying to say my papers aren't
scientific, that is just libellous BS.

.Now submitting to a journal is a different story. You first have to pass .muster with the editorial
staff and if they think it meets the journals .basic requirements, then they send it off to two
anonymous reviewers. These .reviewers make comments and either recommend outright rejection,
acceptance .with major revisions or acceptance with minor revisions. That is why it .takes on
average of two years from date of submittal for a paper to be .published in a reputable journal.
Some papers are considered so important .and are fast tracked, but examples of those are relatively
rare - most often .in the medical field, where breakthroughs are important to read about now. . .So
do not get to big a head about giving a paper. Its a nice experience; .you judge the worth of the
paper not by the fact that you gave it (being .alive is the key attribute) but more by the reaction
of your peers. Was it .unique, well thought of, etc.

Ye, in some cases enough to be accepted up to 9 times.

.> BS. Whenever they draw conclusions, they offer opinion. Science is not as .> rigorous as math,
and even there, there are interpretations & .> disagreements over .> implications. . . .They are
both rigorous fields, science has more opportunity to debate .nuances of the findings then math.
Scientist generally offer opinion about .their studies, they rarely take the role of being an
activist. They may .serve on the scientific advisory board of an activist organization, but they
.provide the scientific foundation for what the organization advocates; .positions that most sound
activist organizations take are based good .science, but have mixed in a significant amount of
philosophy. In other .words, two individuals may take the same science, interpret it the same, but
.take too different positions because the underlying philosophy of both .organizations is 180
degrees different. . . .> But you are dishonest in how you interpret the research, just as you LIED
.> about mountain bikers being "banned". . .That is your opinion and given the number of times my
expertise is called on .I can safely say these environmental organizations soundly disagree with
.you. . . .> No, but you might have lost some Effectiveness. . .Thanks for the correction. . .
Actually being dishonest also reduces your Effectiveness. . .You do not even know the positions I
took or the arguments I took.

No, but I have a good reason to suspect that you didn't criticize hiking nor mountain biking.

So your .analysis is simply based on no information,

BS. You gave me the information.

something you are quite good at.
. Since on several of these occasions I was able to demonstrate to the legal .body that the
motivation behind the proposed action was political and failed .to take into account the best
available scientific information of the .species, I think I was quiet effective. In fact I am
going to another .western state next week and anther state the beginning of Feb, to work with
.that Game Agency to encourage management programs based not on politics but .science. So I guess
I must be really un effective for enviros to pay my way .out.

Really? Did they give you bus fare?

.> .No, I am interested in science based studies. .> .> And in defending mountain biking. I can't
think of any other scientist who .> does that. Interesting! . .You failed to read my other posts.
There is no present evidence (and in .fact a substantial body of evidence to the contrary) that mt.
biking does .adversely affects cougars.

Right, because it has never been tested!

If you wish to conclude by noting that (and .something the virtually the entire field of biologist
accepts) I defend mt. .biking so be it. I actually said there is not evidence that the activity
.affects cougars in an adverse way.

That IS defending it. You are misleading your readers, since you don't admit that one reason there
is no evidence is that it has never been tested!!!!

Its that prove-disprove thing again. .And since you have yet to read one article on the species,
you cannot .believe that anyone takes you seriously. . .You may as well hold a bible, stand on a
street corner and scream everyone .is going to hell who does not think like me. its the same
thing. . . .> My apologies for being unclear. what was the first real conference on .>
.conservation biology. and what study serves as its foundation. .> .> I don't know. Enlighten me
(via email, in case I miss your post). . .First real conference was the Conservation of Biology
conference held in .1978 at UC San Diego, the book Conservation Biology: An .evolutionary-
ecological perspective (1980 Sinauer Associates), was the book .that was generated from this
conference. . .Your failure to understand the ecological roots and foundation of this
.subdiscpline is not at all uncommon with activist. You are on a mission, .not really that
interested in the science. The science is only relevant to .you as long as you do not have to
change your mind.

That is pure libellous BS. It is a real waste of my time to even talk with someone so dishonest.

Your view that any .contrary information is put forth by dishonest, lying selfish scientist.

BS. I simply pointed out that you lied, in black and white.

I .guess we all forgot you are simply so much brighter then the rest of us that .you do not even
have to read the most significant papers of our field to .render judgment. . . .read MacArthur and
Wilson's 1967 The Theory of Island Biogeography, .Princeton University press this is the underlying
principle of conservation .biology.

I read Noss's work on that. Same ideas.

.> Easy. I read what the experts write, such as Reed Noss, past President of .> SCB. . .Have you
also read Dennis Murphy's papers also past president of SCB which .often differ significantly with
Noss. Good science is debate, any field of .science that digresses into a group hug is a dead field.

No, I'm not convinced that I need more information about that.

.> ou are the prefect example of someone .> .who never reads the classic papers that form the
foundations. .> .> So what? They aren't the only source of the information, and often not the .>
best. . .If you were a scientist you would have never just made a bonehead argument .like that.
Often times authors take approaches that deviate from the .foundation they are building on. if they
describe why, fine - you can .choose to disagree or accept their arguements, but sometimes they
simply get .it wrong. If you are not familar with the foundation, then you will .blithely accept
something that may be fundamentally flawed.

Discussing anything with you is a waste of time, since you aren't honest enough to examine your own
assertions.

.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

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 22:16:32 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

. .On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Andean <[email protected]> wrote: . .> How do those numbers compare with
pre-Columbian numbers? . .Based on changes in habitats and post hoc analysis, most deer ecologist
.believe that white-tail deer population #S are at an all time high.

I asked about LIONS, not deer.

Mule .and black-tailed deer numbers in California were considered highest in the .1950's and
1960's; well above pre-Columbian times. This is based on the .types of habitats deer prefer, etc.
. .Mule deer and black-tailed deer dropped substantially in the 1970's .throughout the west, but
have recovered to 1950 numbers in some states. .while deer have recovered in California, there
were appreciably more deer in .this state in the 1950's and 1960's. The mail culprit is the
habitat change .brought on by our rather successful fire suppression efforts - which .resulted in
woodland and chaparral habitats that are old and senesce. These .are fire adapted habitats, that
young shoots usually have higher nutritional .value for deer. . . .> But you are also "driven" to
rationalize and defend mountain biking, .> regardless of science. . . .You mean that body of
evidence that can find no connection between cougar .populations and MT. biking, that empirical
data set. I am far more worried .about development and fragmentation of habitats and management
programs that .if they are not science based may result in states overcorrecting their
.population. Those my friend are the real enemies. Mt. bikes is your bogey .man, too bad cougars
don't agree with you.

There you go again, making an unfounded assertion. But you change your story so often that it is a
waste of time talking with you. You refuse to be honest.

.> Just like a mountain biker. Avoid talking about the subject and engage in .> ad hominem attacks
as a diversion. . .Really, and you calling everyone a liar when they take a contrary position
.from you,

You are lying again! I called you a liar because you LIED, not because you took "a contrary
position" to me.

or claim they are dishonest and selfish; yet you continue to make .numerous arguments that are
factually incorrect because you are too lazy to .familiarize yourself with literature, now you
through your hands up and cry .foul. I think you should not live in a glass house and try and
debate .issues without resorting to calling people a liar. That is the clear mark .of an uninformed
person (and since you have not read the literature I can .factually state you are uniformed).

You don't know that either is true, making you a liar again.

.> Read the literature, note how the .> .studies were caried out then provide an analysis of your
review. .> .> I am going on your reports of it. Are you wrong in your reports?! . .No my
characterizations are correct, your interpretations of what I said are .seriously deranged. . . .>
And you are a LIAR. You know nothing of me, or what I think of "God". You .> fabricate "facts". .
.What was that word ad hominem or something, ummm. You haven't read the .literature and so you
cannot make a rational claim I fabricated anything. .In fact I am also quoting my own research, I
can guarantee I quoting my .stuff factually. But how would you know you have not read any of it.

I don't need to. I trust your reporting of it. From that, I can see the contradictions and the fact
that you misinerpreted the results of the research.

.> You are lying again. I am judging from your reports. . .Look up the work lying - you frequently
miss use it. You could not judge if .I correctly interpreted the scientific record because you have
not read it. .You misinterpret what I said and then say I must be lying

I caught you in several lies. It's easy! Every time you make an assertion about me, you lie, because
you don't know what you are talking about: you don't know me!

- grow up read the .literature and then engage me in debate. My 8-yr old daughter is more .logical
than you and more challenging to debate. . .Read the literature read the literature read the
literature ....

Right. Change the subject when you are losing....
===
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

 

[rhopkins]

On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote:

> They did not presume anything, the cougars provided the evidence by .using trails in greater
> proportion then the occur on the landscape. You .beef is with the cougars not the researchers. You
> show your bias. You .reached a conclusion without ever evaluating their study. quite a .number of
> highly respected scientist have reviewed it (several you quote .by the way as Gods) and find it
> compelling. You opinion means nothing .as it comes from an uniformed lay person.
>
> That's a lie, typical of you. I am not questioning the research, but your biased
> INTERPRETATION of it.

Actually I quoated directly from the paper. Since one of my closest friends is the senior author, I
have recieved advance drafts of the paper. My reporting of their findings is precise. You are wrong
again. I must say, since you were completely unaware of the research how could you continue to make
statements that are based on no information and factually incorrect.

> .No, they did not evaluate trail users,
>
> Then you were unjustified in drawing conclusions about them!

No, they found that trails were preferred by cougars. I did not interpret that any more than to say,
that trail use (their view by the way) had no ill affects on cougars using to choose these trails.
Again, prey population size is the most important factor determining the size of cougar population.
Human use of trails does not even make the radar screen for cougars.

> You don't have to trust anything or anyone. You can judge from the data. You don't. You
> misinterpret them to draw conclusions that fit your needs. Just as > you said mountain bikers are
> "banned" because it fits your needs, even though it's a LIE.

You said not me. Apparently you do not have to be informed. you will simply take positions that are
not based on the literature because you have not read the literature; clearly an unscientific
approach if I have every heard of one. By the way you are the one that cannot read what people
said. I said that bikes were banned from trails from NP but that bikes could go just about anywhere
cars could go, it is you that drew a crooked line to conclude I claimed mt. bikers were banned. I
never said that. I noted that as trail use is banned, the type of bike most affectived by the ban
where mt bikes, that is a factual statement. Not sure why making a factual statement fits my needs.
in this case.

 

[rhopkins]

On 23-Jan-2004, Mike Andean <[email protected]> wrote:

> How do those numbers compare with pre-Columbian numbers?

Based on changes in habitats and post hoc analysis, most deer ecologist believe that white-tail deer
population #S are at an all time high. Mule and black-tailed deer numbers in California were
considered highest in the 1950's and 1960's; well above pre-Columbian times. This is based on the
types of habitats deer prefer, etc.

Mule deer and black-tailed deer dropped substantially in the 1970's throughout the west, but have
recovered to 1950 numbers in some states. while deer have recovered in California, there were
appreciably more deer in this state in the 1950's and 1960's. The mail culprit is the habitat change
brought on by our rather successful fire suppression efforts - which resulted in woodland and
chaparral habitats that are old and senesce. These are fire adapted habitats, that young shoots
usually have higher nutritional value for deer.

> But you are also "driven" to rationalize and defend mountain biking, regardless of science.

You mean that body of evidence that can find no connection between cougar populations and MT.
biking, that empirical data set. I am far more worried about development and fragmentation of
habitats and management programs that if they are not science based may result in states
overcorrecting their population. Those my friend are the real enemies. Mt. bikes is your bogey man,
too bad cougars don't agree with you.

> Just like a mountain biker. Avoid talking about the subject and engage in ad hominem attacks as a
> diversion.

Really, and you calling everyone a liar when they take a contrary position from you, or claim they
are dishonest and selfish; yet you continue to make numerous arguments that are factually incorrect
because you are too lazy to familiarize yourself with literature, now you through your hands up and
cry foul. I think you should not live in a glass house and try and debate issues without resorting
to calling people a liar. That is the clear mark of an uninformed person (and since you have not
read the literature I can factually state you are uniformed).

> Read the literature, note how the .studies were caried out then provide an analysis of
> your review.
>
> I am going on your reports of it. Are you wrong in your reports?!

No my characterizations are correct, your interpretations of what I said are seriously deranged.

> And you are a LIAR. You know nothing of me, or what I think of "God". You fabricate "facts".

What was that word ad hominem or something, ummm. You haven't read the literature and so you cannot
make a rational claim I fabricated anything. In fact I am also quoting my own research, I can
guarantee I quoting my stuff factually. But how would you know you have not read any of it.

> You are lying again. I am judging from your reports.

Look up the work lying - you frequently miss use it. You could not judge if I correctly interpreted
the scientific record because you have not read it. You misinterpret what I said and then say I must
be lying - grow up read the literature and then engage me in debate. My 8-yr old daughter is more
logical than you and more challenging to debate.

Read the literature read the literature read the literature ....

 

[Gary S .]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:44:49 -0500, Peter H <[email protected]> wrote:

>Doug Haxton wrote:
>
>>Still, I'm willing to be persuaded. By all means, please cite evidence ......
>>
>Mike seldom, if ever, cites evidence. The simplest inference would be that he doesn't have any.
>
>Pete H

Mikie is the source of all truth and knowledge, so emperical evidence, facts, other people's
knowledge and observations, or anything else, are not needed.

On the other hand, he can extend a single instance he has observed, and make it into the single
possible general case, i.e. one mountain biker did something once, therefore all mountain bikers do
that all of the time.

He also dances back and forth between saying that mountain bikers have some characteristic all of
the time, on bikes or not, and saying that as soon as they get off the bike they change is some way.

Mikie does not really respond to anything from anyone else except by quoting himself and calling
names. No original thoughts.

Happy trails, Gary (net.yogi.bear)
------------------------------------------------
at the 51st percentile of ursine intelligence

Gary D. Schwartz, Needham, MA, USA Please reply to: garyDOTschwartzATpoboxDOTcom

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 19:28:21 GMT, Doug Haxton <[email protected]> wrote:

.On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:46:27 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> .wrote: . . . .>.Murder is
a legal term. .> .>Nonsense. It is also just a word in the English language. You can't legislate
.>English, just for your own convenience. . .I agree completely. Here's the definition from
www.dictionary.com . ."The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with
.premeditated malice."

A dictionary is a compromise, and is based on usage. It doesn't include every legitimate use of a
word, because it would be too expensive to find them all.

.Hm...seems to me that I'm the one using the term correctly, not you. .> .> You can't be indicted
for murdering a .>.corporation any more than you can be indicted for murdering a .>.chipmunk. .> .>I
never said you could. That's irelevant. It's still murder. . .Not according to: . .1) The law .2)
The dictionary

YOUR dictionary. MINE includes all "persons", which can include animals.

.3) The overwhelming majority of people

This is not a matter for a vote.

.I just cited who agrees with me. . .Who agrees with you?

Who cares? It's still murder.

.>.>.1) The culprit (the lion) returned to the scene of the killing. This .>.>.made it likely
(though not certain) that it was the lion in question. .>.> .>.>That's not proof. .>. .>.You
don't *need* proof to kill a non-human animal. .> .>But you DO, to convince people that it was
just. It wasn't. . .Are you asserting that "people" don't think that killing the mountain .lion
in question was just? I'd be shocked to learn that more than 5% .of people in general disagreed
with killing this cat.

Who cares? I don't think this is a popularity contest.

.Still, I'm willing to be persuaded. By all means, please cite .evidence that a substantial number
of people disagree with the killing .of this cat.

100% of the email I got on the subject supported my stance. See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/fanmail.htm.

.>.>.2) The shooter was right, wasn't he? .>.> .>.>No, he was a murderer. .>. .>.Human remains were
found in the stomach of the cat...seems to me he .>.was right...wasn't he? .> .>Right that the lion
ate a human, but not right in killing it. . .Ah, so he *was* right in concluding that the cat was a
mankiller.

If you say so. I didn't see the evidence. That still doesn't make the killing justified. It's
still murder.

.>.As to your continued assertion that he was a murderer, I suggest you .>.write to the local DA.
I'd be amused to see the response (if any). .> .>The Justice Department isn't even fair to HUMANS,
much less wildlife. . .If you truly feel that way, it must fill you with despair.

Nope, because I do my part to fix it.

.What do you plan to do about it (beyond trolling on rec.bicycles.soc)?

The same thing I do about everything else.

.>.What laws created by non-humans do you suggest we follow? .> .>The Endangered Species Act (the
spirit, as well as the letter). . .The Endangered Species Act (letter and spirit) was authored by
.non-humans? Fascinating!

Sorry, I didn't read that carefully.

.Documentation, please? . .In any case, check this out, from the text of the ESA::
.http://endangered.fws.gov/esa.html . ."(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no
civil penalty .shall be imposed if it can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence .that the
defendant committed an act based on a good faith belief that .he was acting to protect himself or
herself, a member of his or her .family, or any other individual from bodily harm, from any
endangered .or threatened species." . .In other words, it's just peachy to kill *any* endangered
animal if .it's done to protect humans. So by all means, please enforce the ESA.

The lion wasn't threatening anyone. It was trying to eat its kill.

.What other laws do you suggest we follow? I really liked this one! .>.Here's a clue for you, Mikey:
being a speciest is rational. Treating .>.all animals equally is irrational. .> .>Only if you assume
that winning is the only thing that's important. . .If you describe saving human lives at the
expense of non-human lives .as "winning", then yes...it's very important. . .>.Suppose I go out and
kill the following, while breaking no laws: .>. .>.1) Antelope .>.2) Duck .>.3) Frog .>.4) Trout
.>.5) Worm .>. .>.Assume that in all cases I have the required hunting or fishing .>.license. Which
of these, if any, do you consider to be murder? .> .>All of them. . .Intriguing...tell me, what
should the penalty be for catching a fish .and eating it?

Whatever the fish choose.

.BTW...does killing *any* animal qualify as murder? Specifically, .what about an insect?

Of course, as long as it's not self-defense.

.A germ? . .A virus?

Yep.

.>.>.Not as far as I can tell. Please be specific: who has described this .>.>.cat as a "murderer"?
Be sure to provide a link. .>.> .>.>I just did. .>. .>.Incorrect. Earlier, you said: .>. .>." If a
mountain lion kills a human, even if it is just trying to .>.survive, it's considered an aberration
and "murder". " .> .>Proved by the fact that we executed it. . .Actually, execution is by definition
the killing of a *human*.

Not according to the dictionary.

Since .the lion's not human....well, I'm sure you can reach the logical .conclusion. . .Or not,
sadly. .> .>.You are alleging that when a mountain lion eats a human the public at .>.large
considers the cat to be a murderer. Surely, then, you can a .>.find a couple of stories in which
the cat is described in that manner. .> .>Not in those words, but the meaning is the same. That's
why we killed it. .> .>.Who, *specifically*, has described the cat as a "murderer"? .> .>It is
implied by the way we talk about it, regardless of what words they use. . .Ah, so you *can't* cite
a single instance. Good of you to admit it. . .Let me get this straight: you're saying that people
imply things .through the use of words... but that the words used are irrelevant?

I didn't say that. Not everything implied by a sentence is spelled out. That's why it's called
"implication".

.Don't make me look up the definition of the word "imply". I've got a .dictionary and I'm not afraid
to use it!

But you were apparently afraid to look up "execution", because you got it wrong.

.One last question: who's your favorite movie character?

I don't have one. I don't see that many movies. Besides, they are fictitious.

.I'm guessing that it's Vizzini. Am I right?

Who's that?

.Doug

===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande