"Divisive Issue"

On 7 Mar 2007 09:30:44 -0800, Bob Berger wrote:

In article , Mike Vandeman says...

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?

Because it causes confusion. Others don't know that you're using a personal
definition, and thus are likely to missintrpret the implications what you're
saying.

My definition is reasonable and fills a void.

Is it reasonable? I'm not sure. What is the biological or environmental
justification for the 1,000,000 year value? Why is that better than, say,
100,000 years or 5,000,000 years?

Also, it appears that your 1,000,000 year value operates as a binary switch;
less than that value: exotic, that value or mo not exotic. If so, is that
reasonable?

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.

This isn't a theoretical example. It happened. The gray wolf (canis lupus) was
an exotic species (by your definition) in the Yellowstone region. Humans
eradicated it. The NPS later reintroduced the exact same exotic species, canis
lupus. Why is that an acceptable action under your definition?

I suggest that a binary switch "clock time in area" test isn't a good metric by
which to measure the exoticness of a species.

It's interesting that you haven't offered any reasonable alternative.
Nor any jiustification.

Bob

===
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

On 7 Mar 2007 14:04:45 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:

On Mar 7, 9:30 am, Bob Berger wrote:
In article , Mike Vandeman says...


I suggest that a binary switch "clock time in area" test isn't a good metric by
which to measure the exoticness of a species.


Or, more likely, the assertion of such a thing is merely a means by
which MJV gets people to reply to his trolls.

Then why do you do it, hypocrite?

Like every other outrageous statement he makes.

E.P.
===
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 7 Mar 2007 16:31:32 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 4, 11:52 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
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 cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
point very well:

"The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
bad."

BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before
putting your foot in your mouth again.
===
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 7 Mar 2007 09:30:44 -0800, Bob Berger wrote:

In article , Mike Vandeman says...

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?

Because it causes confusion. Others don't know that you're using a personal
definition, and thus are likely to missintrpret the implications what you're
saying.

My definition is reasonable and fills a void.

Is it reasonable? I'm not sure. What is the biological or environmental
justification for the 1,000,000 year value? Why is that better than, say,
100,000 years or 5,000,000 years?

Please respond to this question.

Also, it appears that your 1,000,000 year value operates as a binary switch;
less than that value: exotic, that value or mo not exotic. If so, is that
reasonable?

Please respond to this question.

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.

This isn't a theoretical example. It happened. The gray wolf (canis lupus) was
an exotic species (by your definition) in the Yellowstone region. Humans
eradicated it. The NPS later reintroduced the exact same exotic species, canis
lupus. Why is that an acceptable action under your definition?

Please respond to this question.

I suggest that a binary switch "clock time in area" test isn't a good metric by
which to measure the exoticness of a species.

It's interesting that you haven't offered any reasonable alternative.
Nor any jiustification.

That will come in due time, if necessary. Right now, I'm trying to learn your
justification for the 1,000,000 year value, how you apply it, and (under your
definition) what ramifications being an exotic species has.

It was with that in mind that I asked you, above, to respond to the three
questions I posed in my previous post to which you did not respond.

Bob

===
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 Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
point very well:

"The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
bad."

BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before
putting your foot in your mouth again.

Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of
us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the
fourth grade.

Now, back to the discussion. You seem to think that, without man
around, the world's wildlife would be in some sort of equilibrium.
Their never was, and never will be, this peaceable kingdom you
envision. The lion will always eat the lamb and when he has killed
all the lambs in his neck of the savannah, he will move on to where
there are more lambs.

On Mar 8, 9:58 am, "Olebiker" wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
point very well:

"The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
bad."

BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before
putting your foot in your mouth again.

Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of
us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the
fourth grade.

Now, back to the discussion.

To quote a previous post in this thread:

"He's not here (usenet) to have a discussion, but to create noise.
Every person who posts in reply to him is just feeding the post count
and bumping his threads.

When scientifically cornered, he'll abdicate every time with a "yawn"
or "Did you say something?" proving that he wasn't in it for the
principle, but for the sake of creating noise.

I don't know *one single person* who doesn't immediately understand
that his spew is 95% crap. Even the dumbest usenetter gets it pretty
quick."

He says outrageous stuff to get you to respond. Don't play his game.

The more *you* post, the smarter *he* looks.

E.P.

On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, "Ed Pirrero" wrote:

The more *you* post, the smarter *he* looks.


Well,,,,,,at least he has more opportunities to spout off.

PH

On Mar 8, 3:32 pm, "Ed Pirrero" wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:58 am, "Olebiker" wrote:





On Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
point very well:

"The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
bad."

BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before
putting your foot in your mouth again.

Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of
us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the
fourth grade.

Now, back to the discussion.

To quote a previous post in this thread:

"He's not here (usenet) to have a discussion, but to create noise.
Every person who posts in reply to him is just feeding the post count
and bumping his threads.

When scientifically cornered, he'll abdicate every time with a "yawn"
or "Did you say something?" proving that he wasn't in it for the
principle, but for the sake of creating noise.

I don't know *one single person* who doesn't immediately understand
that his spew is 95% crap. Even the dumbest usenetter gets it pretty
quick."

He says outrageous stuff to get you to respond. Don't play his game.

The more *you* post, the smarter *he* looks.

E.P.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"You" don't have to read it.

On 8 Mar 2007 09:58:31 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
point very well:

"The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
bad."

BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before
putting your foot in your mouth again.

Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of
us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the
fourth grade.

Now, back to the discussion. You seem to think that, without man
around, the world's wildlife would be in some sort of equilibrium.
Their never was, and never will be, this peaceable kingdom you
envision. The lion will always eat the lamb and when he has killed
all the lambs in his neck of the savannah, he will move on to where
there are more lambs.

I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just telling the truth. Here you go
again, fabricating stories that have nothing to do with me. That's
normally called "lying". As to the fourth grade, your grasp of basic
biology isn't even there yet.

All I have said is that the presence of humans is harmful to wildlife
-- something that is indisputable.
===
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 8 Mar 2007 12:32:55 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:

On Mar 8, 9:58 am, "Olebiker" wrote:
On Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
point very well:

"The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
bad."

BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before
putting your foot in your mouth again.

Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of
us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the
fourth grade.

Now, back to the discussion.

To quote a previous post in this thread:

"He's not here (usenet) to have a discussion, but to create noise.
Every person who posts in reply to him is just feeding the post count
and bumping his threads.

When scientifically cornered, he'll abdicate every time with a "yawn"
or "Did you say something?" proving that he wasn't in it for the
principle, but for the sake of creating noise.

I don't know *one single person* who doesn't immediately understand
that his spew is 95% crap. Even the dumbest usenetter gets it pretty
quick."

He says outrageous stuff to get you to respond. Don't play his game.

The more *you* post, the smarter *he* looks.

So what's YOUR excuse, hypocrite?

E.P.
===
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