Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house" and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials carefully
chosen to support your opinions

That's a LIE.

hardly counts as a reference. Provide
INDEPENDANT review of YOUR statements and opinions. Until you do, you are
only making a "because I say so" statement.


===
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 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

This encompasses both the personal inlination which is not subject to
the MJV scale of acknowledgement, and the legality of any particular
locale for riding. Obviously, I would not be able (legally) to ride in
a wilderness area. But on private timber company land, when that
company explicitly welcomes MTBers to use the human-powered-only trails
(no horses/motos), then all conditions are met. Even the MJV "habitat
damage" criteria - since it's harvest-forest land, my biking activities
are nothing in comparison to what's going to happen in 10-20 years -
clear cut, then re-plant.

Ooops, did I say something?

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 Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
mountain biking on public lands.
===
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 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
mountain biking on public lands.
===
Your choice not to acknowledge the several valid answers to this question
over the years continues to leave you in a corner of your own making. Beyond
that, you have NO power to make the request as you have NO power to wield in
making decisions. Fortunately, your own lack of substance in dealing with
the reality of the benefits put forth has left your credibility in a
shambles and your voice empty in the actual discussions that continue to
move forward.
The expansion of access, the actual rules of access and the growth of
cooperation between all groups continues to leave you and your phony
"research" behind.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
tribes, for instance)
Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no
danger.

That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
aren't harming them.
While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most
prevalent
in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
presence over time is much improved.

That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
Crawl back under your rock.

True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion and
your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
than pulling only the pieces you like?

"You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
more sensitive to human presence."

When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers, rather
than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have taken a
big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no platform on which
to present your "opinions".

Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global warming
featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting changes
of climate.
Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your sig
(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.

S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On 19 Nov 2006 11:16:06 -0800, "Ed Pirrero"
wrote:


S Curtiss wrote:
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message

WHY? I have yet to hear even ONE good reason for allowing bikes off of
pavement.

You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons.

Ding! We have a winner.

Really, only one reason need be espoused: because I want to, and am
able to.

You didn't read the question. I was asking for " ONE good reason for
allowing bikes off of pavement." NOT why YOU should ride. Why someone
else should LET you ride off-road. NOW answer the question. "Because
YOU like it" is not a good reason for a LAND MANAGER to allow you to
do it. Otherwise. that same reason would allow people to grow
marijuana on public lands.

Your failure to grasp reality is at the center of the issue. As long as you
continue to insist your views and definitions are the only acceptable
options, you will continue to be looked at as on a fool's errand.

And he fails to grasp that the reality is that the good reasons are
that MTBers, by real, verifiable research, don't leave any bigger
footprint in nature than hikers. And since the reality is that nobody
is going to ban hikers, bikers (and their bikes) will continue to have
access. The activity is growing, and reality matches that growth -
more access to more places. Including National Parks!

I don't think MJV would allow any sort of recreation in any area, if it
were up to him. On foot, on bike, on horseback - none of it. So his
opinion of what constitutes a "good reason" for allowing any of these
things is essentially singular, and of no importance.

E.P.

Because the public allows it, just like they allow the paving of roads so
you can ride your bike on them, or they allow the trees and fossil fuels so
that you can have tires on your bike.

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:06:51 GMT, "Roberto Baggio"
wrote:

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news
You have yet to ACKNOWLEDGE good reasons. You have chosen to ignore the
facts, the evidence, and the real experiences and abilities of cyclists
to
continue with a focus on your opinions. In doing so, your attempts only
cause friction which hampers real efforts of preservation.

The last sentence is crucial; too bad it is only exacerbated by what is
stated in the first two sentences.

I'm still waiting to hear even ONE good reason for someone to permit
mountain biking on public lands.
===
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, 19 Nov 2006 11:15:25 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 18 Nov 2006 08:56:37 -0800, "Jeff Strickland"
wrote:

Mike also ignores (completely) that there is a huge difference in a
human
that passes by and one that builds a house or a freeway (where "house"
and
"freeway" are euphanisms for development that represent a permanent
presence
as opposed to a transitory presence).

When humans pass by on a Saturday excursion into the wilderness then go
home, wildlife is not impacted as Mike repeatedly purports,

The research proves otherwise: http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7.

Referencing your own writings with references only to materials carefully
chosen to support your opinions

That's a LIE.



Precisely HOW is it a lie?

Aren't you referencing your own publication?

Don't your publications contain material chosen to support your opinion?

I'm not sure I know what the lie is here, except it is pretty clear to me
that the assertion that there is a lie is itself a lie.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
...


True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion
and your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
than pulling only the pieces you like?

"You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
more sensitive to human presence."

When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers,
rather than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have
taken a big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no
platform on which to present your "opinions".

Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global
warming featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille
Parmesan. Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is
exacting changes of climate.
Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your
sig (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.



He's not interested in a constructive result, he's a troll
and he's playing you for a reaction like a kid poking a bug.
He doesn't give a crap for the environment or wildlife or he would direct
his
considerable efforts in a direction where they might actually accomplish
something.
Instead he gets his jollys from annoying and namecalling.
If you visit the groups he crossposts to that are concerned with the
environment
you will find that his posts are completely ignored.

As you've already seen a reasoned response, logical, annotated, factual is a
waste of time.
He's like a child making prank calls when Mommy and Daddy aren't home.
He's only interested in getting a response so he can start calling names.
His PhD is in a field wholly unrelated to nature, biology and environment.
His job is in a cubicle for a telecommunications company.
He's an impotent nobody crying out for attention and he gets it only here.



He loses when his posts get ZERO response and sit alone and ignored between
other threads.
That's the only way to defeat a troll. Like Tinkerbelle, when no one
believes in him anymore
he will wither and die.

If you must repond to him, please delete his stupid diatribe. It's criminal
to consider
how many servers are necessary for Google to preserve his nonsense because
people
duplicate his entire post to respond.