|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further
information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl, continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place. This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense". A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000 ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge, plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in bobcat activity: "The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition, and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per 100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the highway." Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals, guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity. Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming. Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games, computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern. How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these areas beyond another rooftop. It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for it. S Curtiss |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05... It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl, continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place. This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense". A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000 ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge, plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in bobcat activity: "The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition, and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per 100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the highway." Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals, guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity. Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming. Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games, computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern. How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these areas beyond another rooftop. It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for it. S Curtiss It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser. Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem. Curtiss reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my narrow focus on trail conflicts between hikers and bikers. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:38:52 -0700, Edward Dolan wrote:
"S Curtiss" wrote in message snip, too much crap too read You girls wanna log-off now and get a damn room! And don't forget the http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/17063.jpg ____ Slack |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
snip, too much crap too read
Yes, I misspelled to... so sue me. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
"Slack" wrote in message newsp.tciir1o75jd7qu@slacker... On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:38:52 -0700, Edward Dolan wrote: "S Curtiss" wrote in message snip, too much crap too read You girls wanna log-off now and get a damn room! [...] Just another idiot mountain biker expressing his frustration at his inability to read anything longer than one sentence. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote: "S Curtiss" wrote in message news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05... It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl, continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place. This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense". A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000 ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge, plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in bobcat activity: "The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition, and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per 100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the highway." Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals, guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity. Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming. Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games, computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern. How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these areas beyond another rooftop. It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for it. BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then, OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road. S Curtiss === 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message ... On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan" wrote: BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then, OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road. Can't you READ? Over the years the benefits of off-road cycling have been shown and accepted as valid by those who plan and regulate access nationwide. The benefits to preservation alone by the increase in numbers of varied interest groups apparently flies right over your closed mind. The decrease in visitation accounted for by increased interest in various electronic media should be an indicator of the danger involved with decreased interest. Less people to speak for preservation only increases the danger of development. You want to restrict activities (off-road cycling, for example) that adds to these numbers of interest...!? But you are obviously unconcerned about the "big picture" as long as it includes a few bicycles. This only continues to prove that it is not wildlife or habitat you are concerned with but merely use as a scapegoat in attempting to validate your opinion. Beyond the added voice for preservation, the economic benefits to many areas that recreation brings to their communities, the health benefits to the participants, the added emphasis on cycling as an alternative form of transportation (cycling in general gets a boost from off-road interest) and the cross-over interest in the outdoors off the bike all come into play. The FACT that you use your OPINIONS as a filter to judge the validity of off-road cycling conitinues to add nails to the coffin of your credibility. Beyond any of that, I only looked through this site (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006) (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) because you listed it on your site as having presented your anti-cycling propoganda. Are you lying? I looked over the list of abstracts submitted and guess what...? YOU weren't listed! I can't find your name ANYWHERE on the site. Did you just add this thinking nobody would follow up? Now, I know you've attended it before... But now you list this one but are not shown as submitted... It is also obvious, even if it was a clerical error and you did present, that you are out of touch with much of what was actually presented. What I read through certainly seems to support a more inclusive effort of cooperation and positive conclusions. You can use your OPINION to filter this flow of information all you wish. However, you are being left behind by an ever increasing voice in research and results and any credibility you ever had is being even further eroded. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser. Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem. Curtiss reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my narrow focus on trail conflicts between hikers and bikers. Please. Don't help. Unlike MV, I do not need the comments of anyone who advances rape, bigotry and self-proclaimed idiocy posted in association with anything I may write. I have no use for the mindset that produces the comments you have made elsewhere in this forum. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05... It seems Uh, thats as far as I read. Slack I think has the right idea for both of you, nice quiet evening in the ghetto, and don't forget the female condom!! ( maybe steve and mike can get matching tattoo's, like this... http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/bz/y8081 Enjoy!! D Drew |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
User group cooperation key to success
"S Curtiss" wrote in message news:BXRsg.7409$nK.1164@dukeread05... "Edward Dolan" wrote in message ... It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser. Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem. Curtiss reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my narrow focus on trail conflicts between hikers and bikers. Please. Don't help. Unlike MV, I do not need the comments of anyone who advances rape, bigotry and self-proclaimed idiocy posted in association with anything I may write. I have no use for the mindset that produces the comments you have made elsewhere in this forum. Mike Vandeman is quite right to treat Steve Curtiss like the **** head and scum bag that he is. Curtiss posts nothing but boiler plate even in his own original post, but I thought to encourage him to do that rather than just be a freaking negative echo to Vandeman. Steve Curtiss is nothing but a piece of human **** and that is how is how I shall treat him from now on. All mountain bikers are nothing but **** heads. Steve Curtiss is the prime exhibit. Even when he posts his own material, it is nothing but boiler plate. He is incapable of ever saying anything original like Vandeman does all the time. Steve Curtiss will now learn what an evil son of a bitch Ed Dolan can be. I will go for the jugular each and every time with him. He is nothing but a g.d. mountain biker who would destroy what it took God and nature millions of years to create. **** him and all his ilk! It will be my pleasure to tear him apart from this point forward. Regards, Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota aka Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
On ya bike to save on high costs, says group | GPLama | Australia | 4 | August 30th 05 05:37 AM |
Query about Etiquette | Roy Zipris | General | 8 | April 22nd 04 04:19 AM |
Carbon frame intregrity after accident | Jürgen Hartwig | Techniques | 37 | November 6th 03 02:32 PM |
Group Riding Dynamics | Roy Zipris | General | 7 | September 25th 03 02:39 AM |
Group ride questions | Ken | General | 4 | July 24th 03 01:05 AM |