Biker Killed by Mountain Lion

(GeoB) wrote in message . com...

Edward Dolan wrote:

It is a wonder that you ever made it to adulthood!

You are not the first to say that. My wife contends that the jury is
still out on that anyway.

Everything I know about natural history (the
life around us) I got from those visits. I will
eternally be grateful to the National Park
Service for educating me.

So, this explains a lot! Your politics is not so baffling anymore, I
see that you were fed straight from the government dugs. :-) Have
you ever wondered if they put a spin on anything? Maybe left out
something controversial, or showed only their side? Is it possible
that the government may feel it has a vested interest in a particular
side of some conservation issues, thus in some 'subtle' way,
pressuring the poor chump making the interpretive signs? (speaking as
one who has made interpretive signs). Is it prudent for an enquiring
mind to listen to one source only?

I have worked for the feds in more than one capacity. I have bumped
heads on conservation issues a number of times. I have heard from
their salaried 'scientists'. I have noted the culture, from the
inside.

They are not necessarily your friends.

As others have repeatedly noted, the National
Parks are the crown jewels of America.

Maybe, but they aren't the crown jewels of academic standards.

I have total respect for a large number of Nat'l Park Service
employees. Not necessarily the administration however (but it changes
from time-to-time).

As always, I intend these comments in the nicest possible way.

I have always thought, without getting into a lot of niggling details,
that you are either for conservation (preservation) or you are for
exploitation (usage) of the land, waters and air of this country of
ours. I have always come down on the side of preservation as has the
National Park Service. Why? Because we Americans have exploited our
country almost to the maximum and what is left ought to be preserved
untouched so that we can have a refuge to retreat to for the sake of
maintaining our own sanity.

By and large I do not believe in multiple usage of the land as set
forth by the Forest Service. I want Wilderness and the more of it the
better. I have argued for years that the whole state of Nevada ought
to be set aside as a National Park with the only exceptions being
those areas around Las Vegas and Reno. Alas, no one will even listen
to me. They think I am crazy! Well, if you are going to be crazy, you
might as well go all the way and think big!

I have also always thought that those who are so much in favor of
development (multiple use) ought to go to New York City or the state
of Ohio where development has been going on for several generations
now - and stay the hell out of places like Alaska which represent the
last chance for Americans to preserve something that is infinitely
worth preserving. But no one will listen to me on this subject either.

The bottom line is that the National Parks represent the very best of
America. They are all extremely beautiful places in which to spend a
few days. I have had the very best moments of my life in these parks
and therefore I will defend them and favor them above any of their
detractors to the bitter end.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...

[...]

Would I pass up an opportunity to point out actions of the Bush II
administration that you disapprove of?

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

As you may have surmised by now, I am not really much of a
conservative - except where it comes to the defense and security of
this country. I have heard this same sentiment being expressed by so
many others (former Mayor Koch of New York City) that it astounds me
that the Dems can't get on the right side of this issue. It must
spring from some kind of atavistic hatred of Bush. I realize the Dems
have got to oppose Bush in order to get back in power, but the war is
the wrong issue on which to do it.

It looks like Kerry has got the nomination now for sure. Another very
liberal Mass. liberal. Apparently the Dems do not really want to win
this time around. But to pin your hopes on 2008 is a form of insanity.
Who knows what the issues will be then.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:

I have always thought, without getting into a lot of niggling details,
that you are either for conservation (preservation) or you are for
exploitation (usage) of the land, waters and air of this country of
ours. I have always come down on the side of preservation as has the
National Park Service. Why? Because we Americans have exploited our
country almost to the maximum and what is left ought to be preserved
untouched so that we can have a refuge to retreat to for the sake of
maintaining our own sanity.

Again, a great reason to vote for Cheney/Bush II so we (USians) will
have four more years of Gale Norton and Steven Griles running the
Department of the Interior. I can not think of a better way to protect
the remaining wilderness areas in the US.

By and large I do not believe in multiple usage of the land as set
forth by the Forest Service. I want Wilderness and the more of it the
better. I have argued for years that the whole state of Nevada ought
to be set aside as a National Park with the only exceptions being
those areas around Las Vegas and Reno. Alas, no one will even listen
to me. They think I am crazy! Well, if you are going to be crazy, you
might as well go all the way and think big!

M*k* V*nd*m*n would agree with you, except that he would ban all
hominids from the parks, including those doing
biological/botanical/ecological research.

I have also always thought that those who are so much in favor of
development (multiple use) ought to go to New York City or the state
of Ohio where development has been going on for several generations
now - and stay the hell out of places like Alaska which represent the
last chance for Americans to preserve something that is infinitely
worth preserving. But no one will listen to me on this subject either.

In addition to Cheney/Bush II being elected [1], you should hope for at
least 60 Republican Senators and a Republican majority in the House of
Representatives in the next Congress. Then the bill allowing hydrocarbon
exploration and extraction in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will
finally be passed.

[1] Or re-appointed by the US Supreme Court.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
...
On 9 Jan 2004 10:31:35 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

This might be the best possible use for huge
areas of Canada and Siberia as well as central Asia and other
wastelands scattered about the earth.

"Wastelands", really? I think the beasties should be left where they are,
and people can stay the hell out of their "house". Maybe the best choice
would be to feed the wild animals wastoid refuse like you Ed (if the animals
would even eat your pathetic carcass) and then other people wouldn't be
attacked by hungry animals. I would think the only real "wastelands", in a
lot of aspects, would be areas that you lived in due to the immediately
depressed market value. I thought you were feeling sorry for yourself a few
months back and vowed not to post anymore? Waste indeed.

"Bigfrog" wrote in message
om...
"DH" wrote in message
...
I don't know what the solution is. Do you hunt down the animal for
killing even though that's what it does. If it were a domesticated dog,
we would put it to sleep. Do we kill bears that have attacked humans?
What's the manner we deal with mountain lions?

How should this be handled?

Domesticated or wild, animals that kill a human for any reason are,
and should be put down. Your sympathies are misplaced, a mountain
lion killing a humans is not "what it does". This is a deadly
abbreration that I'm sure has left family and friends of the victims
devastated. I'm equally sure that the encroachment of humans into to
the previouslly wild domain of forest creatures has created havoc with
their ability to survive and otherwise thrive. It's a problem, but
having group thearapy for a killer mountain lion wont resolve the
problem.

I'm far from a hard core tree-hugger, but it makes me laugh how every time
some sheeple wander off into present or formerly territories of wild animals
and get mauled, it's an "aberration". The aberration is between the ears of
the people who are not smart enough to take precautions or just bike where
it's far safer. I guess the solution is to keep reducing habitats, and kill
off all the "abberations", and then the droolers can wander anywhere they
like. Of course then, if they rode off a cliff or something, the "aberrant"
terrain could be dealt with by what, bulldozing all the hills so they're
flat?

Part of the solution is if people could just get a clue. Not likely to
happen.

One mountain biker is killed, another injured by a mountain lion in
Orange County, California...The lion is still on the loose.

"on the loose" ?

As in, trying to live where it has for tens of thousands of years
while idiots keep riding around in its habitat?

Idiot quote of the day: "This mountain lion was hunting and I don't
now why. I've never seen behavior like that. It was just unreal."

Here's why: It was hungry and in its turf. What is so unreal about
that?

It's unusual because Mountain Lions, as a species, do not hunt humans.
This
lion is different. Around humans, they have been timid, shy, and
reclusive.

Not for a mountain lion that was most likely more hungry than it was scared
due to the possibility of tourists scaring off it's real menu options. How
many days of sitting off the trail while meat was riding and jogging by,
would a hungry cat decide to say screw it and take a chance? While big cats
might be timid and more prone to run off, after about 10 seconds in an
encounter when the cat doesn't back off, it could quite likely determine it
has the upper hand against the majority of people.

"Sticker Jim" wrote in message ble.rogers.com...

On 9 Jan 2004 10:31:35 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

This might be the best possible use for huge
areas of Canada and Siberia as well as central Asia and other
wastelands scattered about the earth.

"Wastelands", really? I think the beasties should be left where they are,
and people can stay the hell out of their "house". Maybe the best choice
would be to feed the wild animals wastoid refuse like you Ed (if the animals
would even eat your pathetic carcass) and then other people wouldn't be
attacked by hungry animals. I would think the only real "wastelands", in a
lot of aspects, would be areas that you lived in due to the immediately
depressed market value. I thought you were feeling sorry for yourself a few
months back and vowed not to post anymore? Waste indeed.

The only wasteland that I can glean from your post is that between
your ears. Try to stay current on what is being posted instead of
resurrecting subject threads that are long dead and gone. And stop
drinking so much also. A little is good, but too much is bad. A
drunken poster is an abomination to man and beast alike.

Waste indeed!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Sticker Jim" wrote in message ble.rogers.com...

On 9 Jan 2004 10:31:35 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

This might be the best possible use for huge
areas of Canada and Siberia as well as central Asia and other
wastelands scattered about the earth.

"Wastelands", really? I think the beasties should be left where they are,
and people can stay the hell out of their "house".

I believe that is pretty much what I was proposing. You can't read
worth a damn. Back to kindergarten with you!

Maybe the best choice
would be to feed the wild animals wastoid refuse like you Ed (if the animals
would even eat your pathetic carcass) and then other people wouldn't be
attacked by hungry animals.

Insult duly noted and it will be returned with interest when you least
expect it. I have entered your name in my black book as being
especially deserving of future insults. You have much to look forward
to, I can assure you of that!

I would think the only real "wastelands", in a
lot of aspects, would be areas that you lived in due to the immediately
depressed market value.

I would not be caught dead in a high market value area. Such areas
represent nothing but too many people and too high property taxes. But
you are welcome to it. Just stay out of my beloved hinterlands, if
you please.

I thought you were feeling sorry for yourself a few
months back and vowed not to post anymore?

If everyone on this newsgroup were like you I would be gone in a
flash. But your type is a very small minority here. Most are
intelligent and polite. You are neither. But that is OK with me. I do
not have to live inside your skull, which I think must be a really
miserable place to be.

Waste indeed.

And sayonara to you too!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

"Sticker Jim" wrote in message ble.rogers.com...

"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
...

On 9 Jan 2004 10:31:35 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

This might be the best possible use for huge
areas of Canada and Siberia as well as central Asia and other
wastelands scattered about the earth.

"Wastelands", really? I think the beasties should be left where they are,
and people can stay the hell out of their "house". Maybe the best choice
would be to feed the wild animals wastoid refuse like you Ed (if the animals
would even eat your pathetic carcass) and then other people wouldn't be
attacked by hungry animals. I would think the only real "wastelands", in a
lot of aspects, would be areas that you lived in due to the immediately
depressed market value. I thought you were feeling sorry for yourself a few
months back and vowed not to post anymore? Waste indeed.

God! What a mess his post is.

First, he includes Zippy at the top but there is no hint of his words
here.

Second, he has four separate and distinct thoughts (I am being
generous to describe his single sentence ramblings as "thoughts") in
his paragraph which ought to be four separate paragraphs. They would
be very short paragraphs, but to scramble them together like he has
done is to scramble the mind of the reader.

Third, he has butchered my post by not selecting enough of what I said
to give any context to it. Who knows what he is blathering about based
on the very short excerpt he has pulled out of my post.

God! What a mess his post is!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. But I have taken mercy on him in this one instance by responding
to someone whom I now consider a near idiot, but not yet a total
idiot. He does not get a second chance at me. If and when I classify
him as a total idiot I will respond to whatever he has to say with the
appropriate contempt and disdain.

I agree. There are way too many people. If we continue to screw up the
balance by over-populating the world (as we will as we are not too smart),
we will continue to move into areas where the 'wild' animals live. We will
bitch about them, and kill them off, without a thought about what we are
doing to the world.

All those 'bundles from heaven' grow up and demand resources.... and don't
come bragging to me about all your grandchildren. I put up with them on the
highway every day.

Arne (I remember when the USA had a population of 150 million and was much
more liveable)

=====================

"Wastelands", really? I think the beasties should be left where they are,
and people can stay the hell out of their "house".