Mountain Lion Kills Mountain Biker

[Kevin]

Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 23 Jan 2004 03:00:28 -0800, [email protected] (Kevin) wrote:
>
> .jack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<dontthrowspam-
> [email protected]>... .> In article
> <[email protected]>, .> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote: .> .>
> > .> > Here is what I said, liar: .> > .> .> LMAO! This is classic. Vandeman calling others liars
> LOL! .> .> Jack . .People, people, people. I'm telling you this: Mike Vandeman is .anti-mountain
> bike because he's a candy assed wuss who CAN'T RIDE!!! .He tried it, he got his punk ass dropped
> by others who were tired of .his wussy complaining, he spent the night cold and crying on a stump
> .somewhere in the Sierra's and now mountain biking is his enemy because .of it. I think we need to
> find those people who actually dropped him .and have them apologize to him. I think he'd go away
> then. . .If you would just have some compassion for him because he's a puss who .fell off the back
> then this group would be a lot better place! Your .welcome, Mike.
>
> Cute fantasy, 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: how come every one but you is a liar? Me thinks you protest too much.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 23 Jan 2004 16:14:38 -0800, [email protected] (Kevin) wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... .> On 23 Jan 2004 03:00:28 -0800, [email protected]
(Kevin) wrote: .> .> .jack <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<dontthrowspam-
[email protected]>... .> .> In article
<[email protected]>, .> .> Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote: .> .>
.> .> > .> .> > Here is what I said, liar: .> .> > .> .> .> .> LMAO! This is classic. Vandeman
calling others liars LOL! .> .> .> .> Jack .> . .> .People, people, people. I'm telling you this:
Mike Vandeman is .> .anti-mountain bike because he's a candy assed wuss who CAN'T RIDE!!! .> .He
tried it, he got his punk ass dropped by others who were tired of .> .his wussy complaining, he
spent the night cold and crying on a stump .> .somewhere in the Sierra's and now mountain biking is
his enemy because .> .of it. I think we need to find those people who actually dropped him .> .and
have them apologize to him. I think he'd go away then. .> . .> .If you would just have some
compassion for him because he's a puss who .> .fell off the back then this group would be a lot
better place! Your .> .welcome, Mike. .> .> Cute fantasy, 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: how come every one but you is a liar? Me thinks you
protest too much.

Not everyone. Only mountain bikers & apologists for mountain bikers.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 14:54:39 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> .It has EVERYTHING to do with your position. It illustrates that you are .> .wrong. It also
shows that you are lying. .> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by definition. .> === . .By
that logic, when a fish is out of water, air is his habitat. By your .logic, the Sahara Desert can
become elephant habitat just because an .elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human
habitat is .anyplace a human appears. . .The people that study these things seem to think the lion
was out of his .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern California. But, .you
don't care about facts, do you?

He extended his habitat. DUH!
===
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

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> .It has EVERYTHING to do with your position. It illustrates that you are .wrong. It also shows
> that you are lying.
>
> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by definition.
> ===

By that logic, when a fish is out of water, air is his habitat. By your logic, the Sahara Desert can
become elephant habitat just because an elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human
habitat is anyplace a human appears.

The people that study these things seem to think the lion was out of his habitat as a result of the
recent fires that swept Southern California. But, you don't care about facts, do you?

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by definition. .> === . .By that logic, when a fish is
> out of water, air is his habitat. By your .logic, the Sahara Desert can become elephant habitat
> just because an .elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human habitat is .anyplace a
> human appears. . .The people that study these things seem to think the lion was out of his
> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern California.
But,
> .you don't care about facts, do you?
>
> He extended his habitat. DUH!

He extended his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people visiting a park that was set
aside to specifically give people a place to visit.

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by definition. .> .> === .> . .> .By that logic,
when a fish is out of water, air is his habitat. By your .> .logic, the Sahara Desert can become
elephant habitat just because an .> .elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human
habitat is .> .anyplace a human appears. .> . .> .The people that study these things seem to think
the lion was out of his .> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern California.
.But, .> .you don't care about facts, do you? .> .> He extended his habitat. DUH! . . .He extended
his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people visiting .a park that was set aside to
specifically give people a place to visit.

BS. The people created the problem, by creating a park in lion habitat.
===
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

 

[Jeff Strickland]

"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> . .> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by definition. .> .> === .> . .> .By that logic,
> when a fish is out of water, air is his habitat. By
your
> .> .logic, the Sahara Desert can become elephant habitat just because an .> .elephant got lost and
> ended up there. By your logic, human habitat is .> .anyplace a human appears. .> . .> .The people
> that study these things seem to think the lion was out of
his
> .> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern
California.
> .But, .> .you don't care about facts, do you? .> .> He extended his habitat. DUH! . . .He extended
> his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people
visiting
> .a park that was set aside to specifically give people a place to visit.
>
> BS. The people created the problem, by creating a park in lion habitat.
> ===

Yes, I suppose you are right. By your reasoning, the entire planet is lion habitat, therefore a
public park is a problem. I never thought of it that

prehaps that is reason that I wouldn't have considered that possibility.

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]>
>
> wrote:
>
>>. .> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by definition. .> .> === .> . .> .By that logic,
>>when a fish is out of water, air is his habitat. By
>
> your
>
>>.> .logic, the Sahara Desert can become elephant habitat just because an .> .elephant got lost and
>>ended up there. By your logic, human habitat is .> .anyplace a human appears. .> . .> .The people
>>that study these things seem to think the lion was out of
>
> his
>
>>.> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern
>
> California.
>
>>.But, .> .you don't care about facts, do you? .> .> He extended his habitat. DUH! . . .He extended
>>his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people
>
> visiting
>
>>.a park that was set aside to specifically give people a place to visit.
>>
>>BS. The people created the problem, by creating a park in lion habitat.
>>===
>
>
> Yes, I suppose you are right. By your reasoning, the entire planet is lion habitat, therefore a
> public park is a problem. I never thought of it that

> prehaps that is reason that I wouldn't have considered that possibility.
>
NOt sure how this thread got started, but the cougar that attack the two cyclist was in the middle
of good quality lion habitat. This is an area that Paul Beier studied and this site has all of the
important prerequisites for a cougar, good deer populations and good cover that facilitates hunting
as these are obligatory carnivores. Mikey, does not realize that the trails and trail users do not
factor into whether or not cougars choose to occur in this park. The only significant thing that
the cougar is concerned with is there food (there is) and is it contiguous with lots of other
habitat (it is).

Rick

 

[Jeff Strickland]

> NOt sure how this thread got started, but the cougar that attack the two cyclist was in the middle
> of good quality lion habitat. This is an area that Paul Beier studied and this site has all of the
> important prerequisites for a cougar, good deer populations and good cover that facilitates
> hunting as these are obligatory carnivores. Mikey, does not realize that the trails and trail
> users do not factor into whether or not cougars choose to occur in this park. The only significant
> thing that the cougar is concerned with is there food (there is) and is it contiguous with lots of
> other habitat (it is).
>
> Rick
>
This particular wilderness area got that designation because of the rapidly encroaching suburbs of
Orange County. Yes, the area is historically lion habitat, but the suburbs are also lion habitat
from a historical perspective - or histerical perspective that Mike likes to have. The wilderness
designation is relatively recent - about 20 years - and its purpose is to stop any further
development plans. The area is not remote by any stretch of the imagination.

The park (Whiting) is immediately adjacent to the Cleveland National Forest, and the wilderness
designation has the effect of simply enlarging the forest. The reason for the designation was to
halt the encroachment of suburbia into the edges of the national forest. The animals don't care who
manages the land, so the while designation is important to us, it is not important to the animal
populations, so any designation that preserves more space for animals has the effect of making the
forest larger. Had the lion been about 1 mile east of where he got the people, he could have hunted
in a range north to south of over 45 miles and not encountered a single residence, with the possible
exception of a couple of homes that are very remote. The lion was literally in the backyards of
suburban Orange County.

 

[Xyzzy]

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

> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my view that (1) bicycles
> don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it too easy for
> people to get into wildlife habitat and disturb the wildlife whose home it is;

Was the mountain lion disturbed by the mountain biker or did it see her as prey?

> and (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE;

...but if I can walk there on my own two feet, who's going to stop me?

> wildlife have already lost far too much habitat,

Certainly.

> and deserve to have habitat that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that
> are dangerous to humans.

> Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland National Forest to > human access is
> the only appropriate response to this incident.

How about trailhead signs that say:

WARNING! Dangerous mountain lion in this area. Proceed at your OWN RISK.

> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion.

I agree. Put up the signs and let people take care of themselves.

> It was just trying to survive, the only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill
> the animal first, and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans,
> you are innocent till proven guilty.

> Mountain bikers, of course, responded by calling for even MORE mountain biking: riding with
> others. This proves that their alleged love of nature doesn't exist.

That doesn't prove any such thing.

 

[Peter H]

Xyzzy wrote:

>> This proves that their alleged love of nature doesn't exist.
>>
>>
>
>That doesn't prove any such thing.
>
>
Actually, it demonstrates ONLY the monomaniacal fervor of the rabid fool who starts all these
threads & thus far (in my memory) has found only one person who agrees on about 1/4th or less of his
flaming stupidity. That one person is counterbalanced by (choose your number here) who reply once,
twice, and for some it bcomes a game & they reply all the time. Admittedly, these threads are
tempting but they're oh-so-very patterned & Ole Flame Of The Universe uses the same sorry cliches
time after time . . . . . . . . . .

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power. Cicero

 

[Peter H]

Xyzzy wrote:

>How about trailhead signs that say:
>
> WARNING! Dangerous mountain lion in this area. Proceed at your OWN RISK.
>
>
If my experience with real & perceived dangers in the north Maine woods and the relevant managing
authorities is any guide, your seemingly worthwhile suggestion is only an invitation for the lawyers
to go into a feeding frenzy at the first sprained ankle.

Pete H

--
Freedom is participation in power. Cicero

 

[rhopkins]

On 28-Jan-2004, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

> This particular wilderness area got that designation because of the rapidly encroaching suburbs of
> Orange County. Yes, the area is historically lion habitat, but the suburbs are also lion habitat
> from a historical perspective - or histerical perspective that Mike likes to have. The wilderness
> designation is relatively recent - about 20 years - and its purpose is to stop any further
> development plans. The area is not remote by any stretch of the imagination.

Jeff, thanks, I am well aware of the area. It may come as a shock, cougars occur over about 90,000
sq mi of habitat in CA, most of which is not wilderness. In So Ca, Whiting park represents high
quality habitat, and yes the areas adjacent to the park also in the recent past represented good
habitat. Paul Beier found cougars regularly occurring in Whiting Park and other undeveloped areas in
the region. Wildnerness designation is not all that meaningful when defining cougar habitat. Does it
have prey, fairly contingous and can cougars from other larger habitat patches get there. All of the
research in Orange County finds that Whiting Park was and is still good cougar habitat. I expect and
hope it stays that way in the future. Only wise planning will guarantee it. My study area has one of
the highest densities in the literature and it is immediately east of Santa Clara Valley. You are
within half an hour of good cougar habitat from anywhere in San Jose. Remote isn't that important to
a cougar. The lion being in the backyard of suburban Orange County is not all that uncommon for So
Ca and frankly many other parts of the west; the Bay Area, Front Range of Colorado, Salt Lake City,
Portland, Seattle, Eugene, etc. While cougars statistically avoid human dominated landscapes,
developments and agricultural areas, they show a preference for the trails and dirt roads we build.

Enjoy the park, cougars are just a natural part of it.

Rick

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 15:22:19 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. ."Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
.news:[email protected]... .> On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .wrote: .> .> . .> .> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their habitat, by
definition. .> .> .> === .> .> . .> .> .By that logic, when a fish is out of water, air is his
habitat. By .your .> .> .logic, the Sahara Desert can become elephant habitat just because an .> .>
.elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human habitat is .> .> .anyplace a human
appears. .> .> . .> .> .The people that study these things seem to think the lion was out of .his .>
.> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern .California. .> .But, .> .> .you
don't care about facts, do you? .> .> .> .> He extended his habitat. DUH! .> . .> . .> .He extended
his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people .visiting .> .a park that was set aside to
specifically give people a place to visit. .> .> BS. The people created the problem, by creating a
park in lion habitat. .> === . .Yes, I suppose you are right. By your reasoning, the entire planet
is lion .habitat, therefore a public park is a problem. I never thought of it that

.prehaps that is reason that I wouldn't have considered that possibility.

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:55:54 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:

. . .Jeff Strickland wrote: .> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
news:[email protected]... .> .>>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800, "Jeff
Strickland" <[email protected]> .> .> wrote: .> .>>. .>>.> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their
habitat, by definition. .>>.> .> === .>>.> . .>>.> .By that logic, when a fish is out of water, air
is his habitat. By .> .> your .> .>>.> .logic, the Sahara Desert can become elephant habitat just
because an .>>.> .elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human habitat is .>>.>
.anyplace a human appears. .>>.> . .>>.> .The people that study these things seem to think the lion
was out of .> .> his .> .>>.> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern .> .>
California. .> .>>.But, .>>.> .you don't care about facts, do you? .>>.> .>>.> He extended his
habitat. DUH! .>>. .>>. .>>.He extended his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people .>
.> visiting .> .>>.a park that was set aside to specifically give people a place to visit. .>>
.>>BS. The people created the problem, by creating a park in lion habitat. .>>=== .> .> .> Yes, I
suppose you are right. By your reasoning, the entire planet is lion .> habitat, therefore a public
park is a problem. I never thought of it that

.> prehaps that is reason that I wouldn't have considered that possibility. .> .NOt sure how this
thread got started, but the cougar that attack the two .cyclist was in the middle of good quality
lion habitat.

That's exactly what I said. That's why there shouldn't be a park there. Or ANY humans.

This is an area .that Paul Beier studied and this site has all of the important .prerequisites for
a cougar, good deer populations and good cover that .facilitates hunting as these are obligatory
carnivores. Mikey, does not .realize that the trails and trail users do not factor into whether or
.not cougars choose to occur in this park. The only significant thing .that the cougar is concerned
with is there food (there is) and is it .contiguous with lots of other habitat (it is).

You never proved that. But what does that have to do with anything? I still maintain that removing
bikes and removing humans would benefit the cougar. You've given absolutely no evidence to disprove
that, and never will, since humans refuse to try the experiment. They are too selfish. Especially
mountain bikers.

.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 Wed, 28 Jan 2004 11:53:21 -0800, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote:

. .> NOt sure how this thread got started, but the cougar that attack the two .> cyclist was in the
middle of good quality lion habitat. This is an area .> that Paul Beier studied and this site has
all of the important .> prerequisites for a cougar, good deer populations and good cover that .>
facilitates hunting as these are obligatory carnivores. Mikey, does not .> realize that the trails
and trail users do not factor into whether or .> not cougars choose to occur in this park. The only
significant thing .> that the cougar is concerned with is there food (there is) and is it .>
contiguous with lots of other habitat (it is). .> .> Rick .> .This particular wilderness area got
that designation because of the rapidly .encroaching suburbs of Orange County. Yes, the area is
historically lion .habitat, but the suburbs are also lion habitat from a historical .perspective -
or histerical perspective that Mike likes to have. The .wilderness designation is relatively recent
- about 20 years - and its .purpose is to stop any further development plans. The area is not remote
by .any stretch of the imagination. . .The park (Whiting) is immediately adjacent to the Cleveland
National Forest, .and the wilderness designation has the effect of simply enlarging the .forest. The
reason for the designation was to halt the encroachment of .suburbia into the edges of the national
forest. The animals don't care who .manages the land, so the while designation is important to us,
it is not .important to the animal populations, so any designation that preserves more .space for
animals has the effect of making the forest larger. Had the lion .been about 1 mile east of where he
got the people, he could have hunted in a .range north to south of over 45 miles and not encountered
a single .residence, with the possible exception of a couple of homes that are very .remote. The
lion was literally in the backyards of suburban Orange County.

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Mike Vandeman]

On 28 Jan 2004 15:48:01 -0800, [email protected] (Xyzzy) wrote:

.Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>... . .> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking
mountain bikers confirms my view .> that (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, .>
or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into .> wildlife habitat and
disturb the wildlife whose home it is; . .Was the mountain lion disturbed by the mountain biker or
did it see her as prey?

Cats with kittens would be disturbed. So would cats whose prey were scared off by us.

.> and (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; . ....but if I can walk there on my own two feet, who's
going to stop me? . .> wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, . .Certainly. . .> and
deserve to have habitat .> that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that
are .> dangerous to humans. . .> Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland National
Forest to > human access is the only appropriate response to this incident. . .How about trailhead
signs that say: .
. WARNING!
. Dangerous mountain lion in this area.
. Proceed at your OWN RISK.

Doesn't work. Humans always think that mountain lions that kill humans are unnatural and deserve to
be killed.

.> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. . .I agree. Put up the signs and let people take
care of themselves.

Some of them will bring guns.

.> It was just trying to survive, the .> only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always
kill the animal first, .> and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among
.> humans, you are innocent till proven guilty. . .> Mountain bikers, of course, responded by
calling for even MORE mountain .> biking: riding with others. This proves that their alleged love of
nature .> doesn't exist. . .That doesn't prove any such thing.

If they cared about wildlife, they would stop riding in lion habitat. It resulted in the death of
one person and one lion.
===
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Want to
help? (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:

> On 28 Jan 2004 15:48:01 -0800, [email protected] (Xyzzy) wrote:
>
> .Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>... . .> The fact that a mountain lion is
> attacking mountain bikers confirms my view .> that (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open
> spaces, .> or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into .> wildlife
> habitat and disturb the wildlife whose home it is; . .Was the mountain lion disturbed by the
> mountain biker or did it see her as prey?
>
> Cats with kittens would be disturbed. So would cats whose prey were scared off by us.
>

Cougars come into close contact (200 to 400 meters) with humans hundreds of thousands a time a year
and choose not to attack. Since attacks are so rare, it is difficult to definitely determine the
motivation. We do know that subadult cougars are disproportionately more likely to attack a human
than a resident adult, just as we know that subadults are more likely to prey on livestock and pets
(a few hundred incidents a year across the west) than adults. Possibly this cat was nutritionally
stressed, but who knows. The second attack is easier to postulate a motive. The cat was protecting
its kill. Most studies have found cougars incidentally killing bobcats, coyotes and foxes at kill
sites (and not feeding on them).

> .> and (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; . ....but if I can walk there on my own two feet, who's
> going to stop me? . .> wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, . .Certainly. . .> and
> deserve to have habitat .> that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that
> are .> dangerous to humans. . .> Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland
> National Forest to > human access is the only appropriate response to this incident. . .How about
> trailhead signs that say: .
> . WARNING!
> . Dangerous mountain lion in this area.
> . Proceed at your OWN RISK.
>
> Doesn't work. Humans always think that mountain lions that kill humans are unnatural and deserve
> to be killed.
>
> .> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. . .I agree. Put up the signs and let people take
> care of themselves.
>
> Some of them will bring guns.
>
> .> It was just trying to survive, the .> only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always
> kill the animal first, .> and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among
> .> humans, you are innocent till proven guilty. . .> Mountain bikers, of course, responded by
> calling for even MORE mountain .> biking: riding with others. This proves that their alleged love
> of nature .> doesn't exist. . .That doesn't prove any such thing.
>
> If they cared about wildlife, they would stop riding in lion habitat. It resulted in the death of
> one person and one lion.
> ===
> 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, 29 Jan 2004 03:13:56 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

. .On 28-Jan-2004, "Jeff Strickland" <[email protected]> wrote: . .> This particular wilderness area
got that designation because of the .> rapidly encroaching suburbs of Orange County. Yes, the area
is .> historically lion .> habitat, but the suburbs are also lion habitat from a historical .>
perspective - or histerical perspective that Mike likes to have. The .> wilderness designation is
relatively recent - about 20 years - and its .> purpose is to stop any further development plans.
The area is not remote .> by any stretch of the imagination. . .Jeff, thanks, I am well aware of the
area. It may come as a shock, cougars .occur over about 90,000 sq mi of habitat in CA, most of which
is not .wilderness.

You have no idea what "wilderness" is. It is a continum. Saying that a particular piece of land is
"not wilderness" is just another rationalization for human abuse of it. The "logic" is: "it is
already messed up, so that makes it okay to mess it up some more". That is a non-sequitur.

In So Ca, Whiting park represents high quality habitat, and yes .the areas adjacent to the park
also in the recent past represented good .habitat. Paul Beier found cougars regularly occurring in
Whiting Park and .other undeveloped areas in the region. Wildnerness designation is not all .that
meaningful when defining cougar habitat. Does it have prey, fairly .contingous and can cougars from
other larger habitat patches get there. All .of the research in Orange County finds that Whiting
Park was and is still .good cougar habitat. I expect and hope it stays that way in the future.
.Only wise planning will guarantee it. My study area has one of the highest .densities in the
literature and it is immediately east of Santa Clara .Valley. You are within half an hour of good
cougar habitat from anywhere in .San Jose. Remote isn't that important to a cougar. The lion being
in the .backyard of suburban Orange County is not all that uncommon for So Ca and .frankly many
other parts of the west; the Bay Area, Front Range of Colorado, .Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle,
Eugene, etc. While cougars statistically .avoid human dominated landscapes, developments and
agricultural areas, they .show a preference for the trails and dirt roads we build. . .Enjoy the
park, cougars are just a natural part of it.

But you aren't. Humans are an exotic species (newcomer) here.

.Rick

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

 

[Rick Hopkins]

Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 03:55:54 GMT, Rick Hopkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> . . .Jeff Strickland wrote: .> "Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message .>
> news:[email protected]... .> .>>On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:30:47 -0800, "Jeff
> Strickland" <[email protected]> .> .> wrote: .> .>>. .>>.> .> BS. Wherever lions go is their
> habitat, by definition. .>>.> .> === .>>.> . .>>.> .By that logic, when a fish is out of water,
> air is his habitat. By .> .> your .> .>>.> .logic, the Sahara Desert can become elephant habitat
> just because an .>>.> .elephant got lost and ended up there. By your logic, human habitat is .>>.>
> .anyplace a human appears. .>>.> . .>>.> .The people that study these things seem to think the
> lion was out of .> .> his .> .>>.> .habitat as a result of the recent fires that swept Southern .>
> .> California. .> .>>.But, .>>.> .you don't care about facts, do you? .>>.> .>>.> He extended his
> habitat. DUH! .>>. .>>. .>>.He extended his habitat to the point that he was a menace to people .>
> .> visiting .> .>>.a park that was set aside to specifically give people a place to visit. .>>
> .>>BS. The people created the problem, by creating a park in lion habitat. .>>=== .> .> .> Yes, I
> suppose you are right. By your reasoning, the entire planet is lion .> habitat, therefore a public
> park is a problem. I never thought of it that

> .> prehaps that is reason that I wouldn't have considered that possibility. .> .NOt sure how this
> thread got started, but the cougar that attack the two .cyclist was in the middle of good quality
> lion habitat.
>
> That's exactly what I said. That's why there shouldn't be a park there. Or ANY humans.
>
> This is an area .that Paul Beier studied and this site has all of the important .prerequisites
> for a cougar, good deer populations and good cover that .facilitates hunting as these are
> obligatory carnivores. Mikey, does not .realize that the trails and trail users do not factor
> into whether or .not cougars choose to occur in this park. The only significant thing .that the
> cougar is concerned with is there food (there is) and is it .contiguous with lots of other
> habitat (it is).
>
> You never proved that. But what does that have to do with anything? I still maintain that removing
> bikes and removing humans would benefit the cougar. You've given absolutely no evidence to
> disprove that, and never will, since humans refuse to try the experiment. They are too selfish.
> Especially mountain bikers.
>
Well since you are so smart point to one study that provides empirical data to show that an area
would support a higher cougar population (how we ecologist measure habitat quality, the greater the
carrying capacity the better the habitat) if humans, especially mt. bikers were pulled out. Hint,
there is no such study. and don't give me your dribble that well everyone is simply too selfish to
do the correct study. Science disproves hypothesis, we never prove anything, mathematics proves. If
you cannot provide evidence to show that cougar numbers improve (no implied study, one that actually
provides empirical data on cougar numbers) as human trail use declines, than shut your trap. Just a
hint, if you were familiar with the literature, you would find out that there is not correlation
with changes in human trail use and cougar numbers. It is not necessary to represent every condition
from no humans to lots of humans. But we do need sufficient data across a range (from few humans and
no bikes on trails to lots of humans including bikes on trails, to disprove your assertion). Just to
let you know there are several studies across the west in NP where bikes are not allowed on the
trails. If you knew the literature you would know this; can you name four NP that have supported
cougar research. A hint to all - NO you can't, because you are a religious zealot.

> .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