"Divisive Issue"

On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:33:08 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:14:50 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!

Just a few from a quick search:

May 2002:
"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
killed
by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
small
animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."

"Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
torment". QED

It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
term.

According to Webster, you are WRONG. Just like everything else you
say! ... Too bad you blew your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to prove me
wrong. c'est la vie.
I don't have to prove you wrong. You do that all by yourself. I (and others)
only point to the truth in the examples of your lies you so willingly
provide either by being blind by your own bias against this particular
activity or by being a complete imbecile. Since actual research, references
and evidence posted over the years shows your opinions are clearly mistaken
and you continue on the same course, the only possible conclusion is the
latter.

According to Webster, "murder" is the deliberate killing of one human by
another.

That's not the only definition, as I quoted for you.

Goodbye, Sour Grapes.

Secondary definitions apply to popular speech and slang.
Beyond that, you still have NOT qualified the statement concerning
"thousands of small animals every week" or quantified the statement in
regards to the depth of small creatures killed by hikers in the same time
frame or nullified your "murder" of small creatures with every step you
take.
Until you establish the FACTS of your statement in total with relevant and
verifiable sources (IE: NOT your opinions or assumptions), it is a NON-FACT
statement.

And - You STILL ignore the obvious LIES and NON-FACTS of the statements
documented from you concerning the remainder of the post as is stated below.
By ignoring it you only CONFIRM the LIES as posted by YOU.

Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
"murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT provided
ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
activities.
You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence to
support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.

You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT (lies)
statements on your part:

Sept 2006:
"It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
cheap thrills."
The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you state
"mountain bikers" destroyed it.

Jan 2007:
In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
response:

"Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
stole a bicycle to get away.
In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
a direct question"

These represent statements made by you and your repeated attempts to
disregard or discard them only shows the continued depth of your dishonesty
and lack of integrity in EVERY statement and claim you make.


You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
proven by the tactics of your replies.

===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

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

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

In article , Mike Vandeman says...

On 4 Mar 2007 08:55:37 -0800, Bob Berger wrote:

In article , Mike Vandeman says...

On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.

That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
agree with him. Man's
superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
but do not take him out of the natural equation.

So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.

I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
as some extranatural being.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.

You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
the day you arrive! DUH!

I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
nothing magic in being a native species.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Early man expanded his

range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
shelter - natural drives.

For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
accept that definition, but scientists do.

It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).

The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
organism got here.

As well as how long it has been there.

One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

What's wrong with that?

By being redefined so broadly (1,000,000 years in the new area before a species
is considered not an exotic) the term loses its ability to communicate to the
reader the condition it is customarily intended to describe. My suggestion would
have been for you to create a new term rather than redefine an existing one.

Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

"RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently
extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It
should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative).

But the gray wolf (canis lupus), which is native to Eurasia, didn't enter North
America until 300,000 or less years ago. It is thus, by your definition of the
term (must be present in the new area for 1,000,000+ years), an exotic.

Why in this case should the gray wolf be considered native (not an exotic) to
the Yellowstone region?

Bob

Bob

Would you have us ship back to Asia any animals that came across the
Bering Strait or ship back to South America any animal that expanded
its range north into North America? The fact that they did not evolve
here does not give them any less right to exist here.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/Tib...ib-burial.html It seems
to be in closest harmony with nature.

But I see that you don't offer to practice it.

It is my understanding that it would not be permitted in America.

No excuse.

This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:

"Conservation & Preservation

"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use the
words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
exist.
Conservation is the sustainable use

That is a nice-sounding concept that has no basis in reality: it
doesn't exist!

Get your head out of books and into the real world and you will see
that it does. As Yogi Berra said, "You can learn a lot by watching."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
of!

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

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:33:08 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!

Just a few from a quick search:

May 2002:
"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
killed
by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
small
animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."

"Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
torment". QED

It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
term.

According to Webster, you are WRONG. Just like everything else you
say! ... Too bad you blew your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to prove me
wrong. c'est la vie.
I don't have to prove you wrong. You do that all by yourself. I (and
others)
only point to the truth in the examples of your lies you so willingly
provide either by being blind by your own bias against this particular
activity or by being a complete imbecile. Since actual research,
references
and evidence posted over the years shows your opinions are clearly
mistaken
and you continue on the same course, the only possible conclusion is the
latter.

According to Webster, "murder" is the deliberate killing of one human by
another.

That's not the only definition, as I quoted for you.

Goodbye, Sour Grapes.

Of course it is not the "only" definition as is referenced below... Can't
you read? It is written in English and everything: "popular speech and
slang"...
As for the rest of the statements below which you cowardly ignore.... I
suppose it is easier for you to believe your own nonsense of false
statements, lies and misleading characterizations rather than even ATTEMPT
to show some integrity. Your NON-FACTS are documented time and time again.
The FACT that you know of your lies is OBVIOUS by your avoidance of the
truth when it is placed right in front of you.

Secondary definitions apply to popular speech and slang.
Beyond that, you still have NOT qualified the statement concerning
"thousands of small animals every week" or quantified the statement in
regards to the depth of small creatures killed by hikers in the same time
frame or nullified your "murder" of small creatures with every step you
take.
Until you establish the FACTS of your statement in total with relevant and
verifiable sources (IE: NOT your opinions or assumptions), it is a
NON-FACT
statement.

And - You STILL ignore the obvious LIES and NON-FACTS of the statements
documented from you concerning the remainder of the post as is stated
below.
By ignoring it you only CONFIRM the LIES as posted by YOU.

Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
"murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT
provided
ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
activities.
You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence
to
support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.

You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT
(lies)
statements on your part:

Sept 2006:
"It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
cheap thrills."
The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you
state
"mountain bikers" destroyed it.

Jan 2007:
In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
response:

"Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area
when
the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
stole a bicycle to get away.
In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism
remains
one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except
for
mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly
abandoned
the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away
from
a direct question"

These represent statements made by you and your repeated attempts to
disregard or discard them only shows the continued depth of your
dishonesty
and lack of integrity in EVERY statement and claim you make.


You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
proven by the tactics of your replies.

===

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:56:10 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the
rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.

That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
agree with him. Man's
superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other
animals,
but do not take him out of the natural equation.

So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.

I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
as some extranatural being.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.
Humans are also along the top of the food chain, have "migrated" just as
many other animals have done and carry no more guilt for doing so than
does
any other animal.

Only those who WALKED here have even a tiny right to be here. That
leaves out 99.44% of the population, including you.
And what of the "wildlife" that currently exists here that did not "walk"
here in their own lifetime? Are they to be vilified also or do they get a
pass simply because they do not have the capacity to understand fictitious
boundaries?

Get over it.
Your opinion has no weight as you are a proven liar.

Hasn't happened yet!
Yes - it has. Numerous times and very recently:
"Jan 2007:
In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
response:
January '07, for instance -
"Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
stole a bicycle to get away.
In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
a direct question"


Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator
that
naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.

You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
the day you arrive! DUH!

I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
nothing magic in being a native species.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.
That is your CLAIM that no one has objected. That means nothing. Provide
actual comments and reviews of your statements made at these "conferences"
which can be verified. If you can not, your claim of "no objection" is
MEANINGLESS.

Still waiting!


Early man expanded his

range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
shelter - natural drives.

For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
accept that definition, but scientists do.

It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).

The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
organism got here.

As well as how long it has been there.
Every migrated species is "exotic" at one time or another. Humans carry no
more a distinction of "exotic" as does any other species that has moved
about for whatever reason.

Then why not admit that we are exotic. But more than that: invasive,
implying that we are veryu destructive to otrher species.
Where do I say humans are not "exotic"? I only state humans are no more
"exotic" than other migrating species. Can't you read?

Would you have us ship back to Asia any animals that came across the
Bering Strait or ship back to South America any animal that expanded
its range north into North America? The fact that they did not evolve
here does not give them any less right to exist here.

Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.
Perhaps the other animal species that have migrated beyond their origin
need
to be "read their rights".... If they could understand them... Or could
have the capacity to care when it concerns the availability of their next
meal or mate.
Humans move about. Get over it.

Then why try to rationalize it? By your logic, anything that humans
feel like doing is acceptable. It's NOT. DUH!
I'm not rationalizing, moron. I am simply stating the FACT that animal
species move about and boundaries are merely a figment of our creation. The
human capacity to understand terms such as "impact" does not alter the FACT
of the current human presence on this continent. It is you that is
rationalizing fact in an attempt to build a foundation for opinions you
already hold.


I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/Tib...ib-burial.html It seems
to be in closest harmony with nature.

But I see that you don't offer to practice it.

It is my understanding that it would not be permitted in America.

No excuse.
Same argument applies for persistant ignorance but that has never held you
back from making yourself a poster child for the term "moron".

This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:

"Conservation & Preservation

"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use
the
words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
exist.
Conservation is the sustainable use

That is a nice-sounding concept that has no basis in reality: it
doesn't exist!

Get your head out of books and into the real world and you will see
that it does. As Yogi Berra said, "You can learn a lot by watching."

Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.
Your narrow and self-defined version of "sustainable" is impossible to
satisfy.

Thanks for agreeing with me.
I agree that your version of "sustainable" is self-defined by you and has no
basis in reality.

However, the cooperative efforts of several organizations and user
groups has given way to rulings and useage guidelines that provide for
growing solutions available for providing human reach and access as well
as
protection of wildlife.

You are lying. All they provide is a figleaf for harmful activities.
You side-step reality. And I am not lying. My above statement is true.
Cooperative efforts are in place. Solutions for protection and access are
being realized. User groups of varying backgrounds are coming together for
better efforts. Where is the lie?

You, however, ignore these positive steps taken and insist on applying
your
definitions and opinions. With so much more at stake concerning expanded
construction and wasted space you remain hinged on your unfounded spout of
misinformation about BICYCLES. It is PATHETIC.

No misinformation whatsoever. You are LYING again --
characteristically, without a shred of evidence.

Your OPINION of my statements is of no consequence. The TRUTH is in the
evidence of the cooperative efforts being combined by differing user groups
as well as the actual recognition by the agencies that have seen the REAL
research, spoken to the REAL researchers and scientists and have left you
out of the loop as an unnecessary "middleman" pedaling useless "reviews".
===

On Mar 5, 4:19 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:

Of course ...

....it's only a weak, obvious troll that you fall for every time he
posts it. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can spot the
deliberately provocative statements made by MJV at every turn.

And thanks to you, the thread bumps to the top of the list and grows
longer as he strings you along to the inevitable "yawn" or "did you
say something" capitulation when he gets tired of stringing you along.

Steve - for the love of all that's holy - please don't bother any
more. Even the dumbest readers of Vandedrivel(tm) can spot how
egotistic it all is. And you're just feeding it.

E.P.

"Ed Pirrero" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Mar 5, 4:19 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:

Of course ...

...it's only a weak, obvious troll that you fall for every time he
posts it. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can spot the
deliberately provocative statements made by MJV at every turn.

And thanks to you, the thread bumps to the top of the list and grows
longer as he strings you along to the inevitable "yawn" or "did you
say something" capitulation when he gets tired of stringing you along.

Steve - for the love of all that's holy - please don't bother any
more. Even the dumbest readers of Vandedrivel(tm) can spot how
egotistic it all is. And you're just feeding it.

E.P.
Yeah - you are quite correct. After all, there are more intellectually
stimulating activities... Playing chess with my cat comes to mind...
He's been trounced so many times by so many people with so much information
to counter his contrived opinions usenet is probably causing global warming.
Besides, I do have a Pinarello in pieces... Two websites to build... other
bikes to ride and guitars to play.
MV has been relegated to the status of "middleman" in an "information for
wholesale from the source" environment. He knows it. You know it. I know it.
And he knows we know it.
My cat is trying to corner my bishop with a knight.... Out!

On Mar 5, 11:12 pm, "S Curtiss" wrote:

My cat is trying to corner my bishop with a knight.... Out!

K vs. B can give a very interesting middle game.

PH

On 26 Feb 2007 12:01:59 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Feb 21, 7:26 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
But I don't see any reason to compromise on telling the truth! Yes, we
are animals somewhat like other animals, but we are not a natural part
of any ecosystem. We are a species that is native to part of Africa,
and everywhere else a very late newcomer, i.e. an exotic species. Like
all exotic species, we have arguably no right to access, much less
exploit, local ecosystems, especially when those activities threaten
native species (except that, when it's convenient, we claim that
"might makes right").

How would you define what is a "native" species in North America? Are
you saying that only species that emerged from the proverbial
primordial ooze in North America have any right to exist here?

Can't you read? http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.

Dick Durbin
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 27 Feb 2007 04:42:18 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Feb 26, 11:40 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. I define it as one that has
been around a million years. But no matter how you define it, humans
in North America are an invasive, exotic species.

So, why should we accept your definition?

Pick a better length of time. And JUSTIFY it.

Animals move from one environment to another in search of more food
and/or better shelter. Wild animals naturally migrate and are not
considered invasive or exotic.

Yes, they are. You don't become a native the day you arrive. DUH!

Why would you consider the Paleo-
Indians who crossed the Bering Strait around 40,000 years ago any
different than other animals?

They got here much earlier.
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On 5 Mar 2007 08:01:40 -0800, Bob Berger wrote:

In article , Mike Vandeman says...

On 4 Mar 2007 08:55:37 -0800, Bob Berger wrote:

In article , Mike Vandeman says...

On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.

That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
agree with him. Man's
superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
but do not take him out of the natural equation.

So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.

I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
as some extranatural being.

I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.

You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
the day you arrive! DUH!

I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
nothing magic in being a native species.

I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
So you are just WRONG.

Early man expanded his

range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
shelter - natural drives.

For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
accept that definition, but scientists do.

It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).

The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
organism got here.

As well as how long it has been there.

One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

What's wrong with that?

By being redefined so broadly (1,000,000 years in the new area before a species
is considered not an exotic) the term loses its ability to communicate to the
reader the condition it is customarily intended to describe. My suggestion would
have been for you to create a new term rather than redefine an existing one.

Why? My definition is reasonable and fills a void.

Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

"RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently
extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It
should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative).

But the gray wolf (canis lupus), which is native to Eurasia, didn't enter North
America until 300,000 or less years ago. It is thus, by your definition of the
term (must be present in the new area for 1,000,000+ years), an exotic.

You catch on quick.

Why in this case should the gray wolf be considered native (not an exotic) to
the Yellowstone region?

It's a matter of degree. They may want to restore an extirpated
species, in which case they have little choice but an exotic.
===
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.)

Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande