M
Mike Vandeman
Guest
On Wed, 10 May 2006 01:44:07 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:46:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:40:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a miracle. It
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and scenic all the
>>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is just senseless destruction of wildlife habitat. If they want
>>>>>> to enjoy nature, they should WALK. (Of course, we both know that they
>>>>>> are too LAZY to do that.)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the bike trail was built on an old railroad bed and there was no
>>>>>destruction of wildlife habitat that had not already taken place from
>>>>>the
>>>>>early days.
>>>>
>>>> ALL natural areas are habitat, including overgrown railroad tracks.
>>>> Also, the fact that it was messed up once doesn't make it okay to mess
>>>> it up some more (e.g. by paving it). It makes more sense tp restore
>>>> the habitat.
>>>
>>>Nope, you and are going to part company here. I do believe in compromise.
>>>We
>>>humans have pretty much wrecked the planet and there is no going back. Our
>>>numbers are too great for that.
>>>
>>>It is very important that we preserve what is left to preserve, but we
>>>cannot really restore that which has been lost. The wild animals, whatever
>>>is left of them, will perish along with their habitat and we humans will
>>>also do ourselves in by our own reckless use of the planet. Unless and
>>>until
>>>we control our numbers, we are as doomed as the wild animals - which is
>>>essentially all that we are anyway.
>>
>> There are whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
>> dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
>> We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
>> thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
>> Condor would be coming back.
>
>Whatever wildlife is coming back is only temporary. It is all going the way
>of the Dodo Bird and all your efforts will come to naught in the end.
But at least I will feel good for having done the right thing.
>> A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
>> human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
>> We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
>> the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.
>
>That is the only thing that has saved otherwise very populous nations from
>total environmental degradation, but that is all changing as they come up
>more and more to Western industrial standards. They will never preserve or
>conserve anything. Africa illustrates this to perfection. Their idea of a
>National Park is that it is a good place to go hunting for large animals.
>Elephants - anyone?
>
>The truth is that the idea of preserving anything of the natural world is an
>elitist idea and is extremely rare. Only a handful of societies have ever
>been able to even grasp the idea, let alone implement it. The "tragedy of
>the commons" is forever being played out everywhere in the world.
You need to get out more. Specifically, you need to attend a meeting
of the Society for Conservation Biology. You will be AMAZED at how
fast it is growing, all over the world.
>>>> There are many natural areas that are not really suitable for
>>>>>much walking as they tend to be rather dull and monotonous after awhile,
>>>>>but
>>>>>they can be quite good for a bike trail.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the result of habitat destruction. By your argument, any
>>>> area we destroy becomes okay to destroy some more.
>>>
>>>Yes, we can not really restore that which has been lost. The US now has a
>>>population of about 300 million. When I was a kid the population was 150
>>>million. Demography is destiny. Population 101.
>>>
>>>>>There is no real wilderness left in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but
>>>>>still there is much natural beauty.
>>>>
>>>> "Wilderness" is on a continuum. It isn't black and white.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Which is why we have to manage what is left. Wilderness is the
>>>most
>>>precious thing of all, but some other areas can be managed so as to
>>>minimize
>>>human impact. But most areas of this country are lost forever to any kind
>>>of
>>>management, other than zoning.
>>
>> I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
>> one thing.
>
>I used to have lots of hope when I was young that things would turn out
>better than they have. Only the National Parks and Wilderness Areas have
>ever come up to my expectations - and even those kind of set-asides continue
>to be threatened. It is a losing battle.
No, it's a glass half full.
>>>> It does not hurt to have a bike trail on
>>>>>an old railroad bed so that others can enjoy the natural scenery. Hey,
>>>>>it
>>>>>is
>>>>>thousand times better than just having them drive through the area in a
>>>>>car.
>>>>
>>>> But not as good as restoring the habitat. Roads & trails fragment
>>>> habitat (prevent wildlife from crossing them -- act as a kind of
>>>> barrier, even if it is physically possible for them to cross it.
>>>
>>>You are way too much a purist on this issue. The average American does not
>>>give a damn about wildlife and their habitat other than a few hunters and
>>>fisherman who only want to kill them for sport.
>>
>> Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
>> retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
>> increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
>> the wise....
>
>I am getting ready to die sooner rather than later anyway. So is everyone
>else too, but they just don't realize it yet like I do.
On that cheery note, ...
>> If you would know the future
>>>of humanity on this earth and it's wildlife, you need to go to China or
>>>India. Outside of extremely mountainous areas in those two nations, the
>>>only
>>>wildlife left are humans. Sic transit gloria mundi.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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
wrote:
>
>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 8 May 2006 18:13:48 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>> On Sun, 7 May 2006 16:46:49 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>>>> On Fri, 5 May 2006 14:40:23 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>>>By the way, I am very much in favor of bike trails constructed to go
>>>>>>>through
>>>>>>>natural areas. There is one in the Black Hills that is a miracle. It
>>>>>>>is
>>>>>>>about 100 miles in length and it is interesting and scenic all the
>>>>>>>way.
>>>>>>>What
>>>>>>>more could any cyclist ask for!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is just senseless destruction of wildlife habitat. If they want
>>>>>> to enjoy nature, they should WALK. (Of course, we both know that they
>>>>>> are too LAZY to do that.)
>>>>>
>>>>>No, the bike trail was built on an old railroad bed and there was no
>>>>>destruction of wildlife habitat that had not already taken place from
>>>>>the
>>>>>early days.
>>>>
>>>> ALL natural areas are habitat, including overgrown railroad tracks.
>>>> Also, the fact that it was messed up once doesn't make it okay to mess
>>>> it up some more (e.g. by paving it). It makes more sense tp restore
>>>> the habitat.
>>>
>>>Nope, you and are going to part company here. I do believe in compromise.
>>>We
>>>humans have pretty much wrecked the planet and there is no going back. Our
>>>numbers are too great for that.
>>>
>>>It is very important that we preserve what is left to preserve, but we
>>>cannot really restore that which has been lost. The wild animals, whatever
>>>is left of them, will perish along with their habitat and we humans will
>>>also do ourselves in by our own reckless use of the planet. Unless and
>>>until
>>>we control our numbers, we are as doomed as the wild animals - which is
>>>essentially all that we are anyway.
>>
>> There are whole organizations, conferences, and university departments
>> dedicated to habitat restoration. I accept their opinion before yours.
>> We can't do it as well as Mother Nature, but we don't have to accept
>> thye status quo. If you were in charge, I doubt that the California
>> Condor would be coming back.
>
>Whatever wildlife is coming back is only temporary. It is all going the way
>of the Dodo Bird and all your efforts will come to naught in the end.
But at least I will feel good for having done the right thing.
>> A book called _National Parks of Northwest Mexico_ made the point that
>> human impacts have TWO components: human NUMBERS, and human BEHAVIOR.
>> We can have an effect in both areas. India is far more populous than
>> the U.S., but Indians individually have 1/7 th of our footprint.
>
>That is the only thing that has saved otherwise very populous nations from
>total environmental degradation, but that is all changing as they come up
>more and more to Western industrial standards. They will never preserve or
>conserve anything. Africa illustrates this to perfection. Their idea of a
>National Park is that it is a good place to go hunting for large animals.
>Elephants - anyone?
>
>The truth is that the idea of preserving anything of the natural world is an
>elitist idea and is extremely rare. Only a handful of societies have ever
>been able to even grasp the idea, let alone implement it. The "tragedy of
>the commons" is forever being played out everywhere in the world.
You need to get out more. Specifically, you need to attend a meeting
of the Society for Conservation Biology. You will be AMAZED at how
fast it is growing, all over the world.
>>>> There are many natural areas that are not really suitable for
>>>>>much walking as they tend to be rather dull and monotonous after awhile,
>>>>>but
>>>>>they can be quite good for a bike trail.
>>>>
>>>> That's just the result of habitat destruction. By your argument, any
>>>> area we destroy becomes okay to destroy some more.
>>>
>>>Yes, we can not really restore that which has been lost. The US now has a
>>>population of about 300 million. When I was a kid the population was 150
>>>million. Demography is destiny. Population 101.
>>>
>>>>>There is no real wilderness left in the Black Hills of South Dakota, but
>>>>>still there is much natural beauty.
>>>>
>>>> "Wilderness" is on a continuum. It isn't black and white.
>>>
>>>Agreed. Which is why we have to manage what is left. Wilderness is the
>>>most
>>>precious thing of all, but some other areas can be managed so as to
>>>minimize
>>>human impact. But most areas of this country are lost forever to any kind
>>>of
>>>management, other than zoning.
>>
>> I choose not to hold such a pessimistic viewpoint. It's no fun, for
>> one thing.
>
>I used to have lots of hope when I was young that things would turn out
>better than they have. Only the National Parks and Wilderness Areas have
>ever come up to my expectations - and even those kind of set-asides continue
>to be threatened. It is a losing battle.
No, it's a glass half full.
>>>> It does not hurt to have a bike trail on
>>>>>an old railroad bed so that others can enjoy the natural scenery. Hey,
>>>>>it
>>>>>is
>>>>>thousand times better than just having them drive through the area in a
>>>>>car.
>>>>
>>>> But not as good as restoring the habitat. Roads & trails fragment
>>>> habitat (prevent wildlife from crossing them -- act as a kind of
>>>> barrier, even if it is physically possible for them to cross it.
>>>
>>>You are way too much a purist on this issue. The average American does not
>>>give a damn about wildlife and their habitat other than a few hunters and
>>>fisherman who only want to kill them for sport.
>>
>> Even if true, I choose not to believe that. The Dali Lama says we must
>> retain hope. I agree. Not doing so is no fun. Pessimism actually
>> increases the incidence of heart disease and other diseases. A word to
>> the wise....
>
>I am getting ready to die sooner rather than later anyway. So is everyone
>else too, but they just don't realize it yet like I do.
On that cheery note, ...
>> If you would know the future
>>>of humanity on this earth and it's wildlife, you need to go to China or
>>>India. Outside of extremely mountainous areas in those two nations, the
>>>only
>>>wildlife left are humans. Sic transit gloria mundi.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
>aka
>Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
>
===
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