Mountain Kills Mountain Biker

Mike Vandeman wrote:
| The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my view that (1) bicycles
| don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it too easy for
| people to get into wildlife habitat and disturb the wildlife whose home it is; and
| (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve
| to have habitat that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are
| dangerous to humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland National
| Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to this incident.
|
| It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to survive, the only way it knows
| how. It is interesting that we always kill the animal first, and then try to justify it (by
| claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans, you are innocent till proven guilty.

I don't normally like to respond to you, Troll, but this I cannot ignore. The Mountain Lion made
itself a danger to human life and not specific danger should EVER be ignored. It became a pest and
it was dealt with as such in the best way possible. No single animal on Earth is worth a single
HUMAN life.

| ===
| 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.)
|
| home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:01:40 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my view that
(1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it
too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat and disturb the wildlife whose home it is; and
(2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and
deserve to have habitat that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that
are dangerous to humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland National
Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to this incident.

It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to survive, the only way it knows
how. It is interesting that we always kill the animal first, and then try to justify it (by
claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans, you are innocent till proven guilty.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

You want to put a mountain lion on trial?

It's an animal. It was hunting humans, not their natural prey, because it was hungry. It was hungry
most likely because it was either sick there are too many mountain lions in that area. The answer is
to reduce the lion population to sustainable numbers. If left to nature, the lions would starve,
thereby reducing their numbers. A better alternative is regulated hunting. Dead is dead. If by
starvation or firearms, it's still dead. The cat has no preference.

BTW. Humans DO belong everywhere. Nature made us the top level predator. That's why we rule the
Earth and lions don't. If you attempt to cut off access to wilderness areas around here then I and
others like me will do what we can to prevent this atrocity.

It just ain't gonna happen.

Strider

Mike Vandeman wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

(2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve
to have habitat that is closed to all humans.

I can't believe it but I agree with this. If it was defined as mountain lion habitat and fenced and
closed to humans then all good and fine. The humans shouldn't have been there. But it wasn't, it was
multi-use and we all know that the cat will end up the loser in that situation.

Quoted message said:

This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are dangerous to humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch
Wilderness Park in the Cleveland National Forest to human access is the only appropriate response
to this incident.

Nothing wrong with that. But not all areas need to be closed or should be closed.

Quoted message said:

It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion.

No, it wasn't.

Quoted message said:

It was just trying to survive, the only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the
animal first, and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans, you
are innocent till proven guilty.

Perhaps, but there are plenty of humans I'd like to shoot on sight.
--
Westie (Replace 'invalid' with 'yahoo' when replying.)

The Nelson Paradigm said:

No single animal on Earth is worth a single HUMAN life.

[censored]. I've met several humans whose lives I'd trade for a good dog's without a second thought or
any remorse and so have you.

If an animal is sick or has acquired a taste for garbage and is frequenting human habitation
without natural caution then there is a case for killing it. When you go out into a creature's
habitat you take life on the terms dealt under the circumstances and don't whine about the
consequences. Going into cougar or grizzly habitat and the risk of a fatal encounter with a healthy
animal is no different from skiing the backcountry and the risk of avalanche or surfing and the
risk of sharks attack.

Take responsibility for your actions instead of trying to make the backcountry into disneyland fer
christsake. If you don't want to get eaten by wild animals don't go to where they are.

jeffbonny van.bc.ca

Mike Vandeman said:

The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my view that (1) bicycles
don't belong in our parks and open spaces

{snip}

First of all, nice header. (Almost true in Miles' recent past.) Can we assume you use similar
diligence in all your "research" efforts?

Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would be equally likely to
happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the outrage if it HAD been hikers, and someone
suggested they deserved to be attacked.)

Bill "IOW, you're yet again shown to be a BIG FAT HYPOCRITE POOPY-HEAD" S.

"Mike Vandeman sat at his computer and drooled the following slimy mess;
"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my

view that

Wow, Mikey, I am impressed. Between your subject line and the very first line of your post you give
us not one, but two inconsistencies within a single post. Here I was, preparing to read about how
some "mountain", somewhere in the great wide world, had actively killed some mountain biker in a fit
of rage and just possibly with a touch of premeditation! How on earth did that word "lion" creep
into your opening statement? And what was with pluralizing the word "biker"? These are two points
that drastically change the intent of your message about a rabid mountain causing the death of a
single specimen of the human species! I mean, how can you so lose your train of thought between your
subject line and entering the first line of your post? Does this little slip combined with "confirms
my view" have any links to some niggling psychological nuance that is troubling you these days?

Quoted message said:

(1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it
too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat

and

Just to show you that I can be just as narrow-minded as you, I will not comment any further on this
statement. Just as you can ignore facts of human nature that are used to refute this, so to can I
ignore this statement by ignoring your facts that lead up to it. I will continue to disappoint you
and not allow myself to heap the derogatory, abusive style of responses that you are so fond of,
down to, and including the foul language that you so much want to believe will help sway people to
your viewpoint.

Quoted message said:

disturb the wildlife whose home it is; and (2) humans don't belong

EVERYWHERE;

FACT ALERT, FACT ALERT! Mikey, I am extremely impressed that you actually managed to get your #2
statement 100% correct. (Here's a gold star to paste on your refridgerator.) It is very refreshing
to note that you agree with all the anthropologists of the world, that the long and convoluted
lineage of evolution that has lead to [censored] Sapien being eminently suitable to live and survive
within the boundaries of the Tropics and Sub-Tropical zones of planet Earth. And of course, I am
not ignoring the fact that, over geologic timespans, some tribes have migrated outside of these
zones and have evolved tools to allow them to live and thrive in those areas. But note that these
tribes have not been physically altered by evolution to allow them to survive there without any
assistance from tools. They just implemented their tool making ability to adapt and design shelter
and clothing.

Quoted message said:

wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve to have

habitat

Quoted message said:

that is closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are dangerous to humans.
Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the

Cleveland

Quoted message said:

National Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to this incident.

It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to

survive, the

Quoted message said:

only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the animal

first,

Quoted message said:

and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among

humans,

Quoted message said:

you are innocent till proven guilty.

Wrong again, Mikey. The only "appropriate response" in this, or any similar cases, is education of
the masses in the ways of nature. The law of the natural world is Kill Or Be Killed. If an animal
does not kill something to survive (even a plant that the mouse eats) then something else will come
along and kill it, or even worse, the animal will starve to death. If human beings are not aware of
what can go wrong in a certain set of circumstances, then there will ALWAYS be some mishaps between
"animals" and "humans". (Though I do get a little fuzzy right about here. Are we not animals
ourselves?) And as for your statement "It is interesting that we always kill the animal first", this
again, is shown by the proof of our evolved, genetic code. If some animal threatens or endangers ANY
member of the "Tribe", then the only response to continued survival and growth of the Tribe is the
extermination of that threat. This is a very deeply imbedded trait that cannot be wished away, nor
would I want it to go away. This trait is what keeps the majority of us from killing our offspring
the first time they do something that displeases us. My own son is 19 and in college, and God help
the imbecile that would harm him, because I will retaliate in any manner that I deem appropriate,
whether legal or otherwise. You do not hurt the flesh of my flesh! This is the very same trait that
does allow us an awakening concern for others not of our own species. But it has nothing to do with
restricting our species, as you so fervently hope for.

Quoted message said:

===
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.)

Your closing statement (signature line), by using words that indicate past-tense, indicate that you
have given up the fight for "auto dependence and road construction". The question that arises here
is, why did you give up? Did you lose there, too?

Quoted message said:

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my

view that

Quoted message said:

(1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of pavement; they make it
too easy for people to get into wildlife habitat

and

Quoted message said:

disturb the wildlife whose home it is;

I'll make a slight exception to my usual rule of simply ignoring you, Mikey. Just this once, 'cause
we truly do love you...🙂

By your own oft repeated definition, the victim in question was *not a mountain biker* at the time
of the attack. He was off his bike, fixing it.

Had he been a hiker (you, maybe), and stopped to tie his shoe, the same exact thing might have
happened. Presenting a small, vulnerable target.

Maybe even you could realize...it's not about the bike. But I doubt it.

Pete bye bye for now.

Strider said:

It's an animal. It was hunting humans, not their natural prey, because it was hungry.

In the scenario given, the human WAS natural prey as seen through the cougar's eyes. Everyone is on
someone's food chain; from a carnivore's perspective, a human is emminently edible.

Pete H

--
When eating an elephant take one bite at a time.
C. Abrams

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:06:49 -0500, "The Nelson Paradigm"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: .| The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .| my
view that (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, .| or ANYWHERE off of pavement;
they make it too easy for people to get .| into wildlife habitat and disturb the wildlife whose
home it is; and .| (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; wildlife have already lost far .| too much
habitat, and deserve to have habitat that is closed to all .| humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for
animals that are dangerous to .| humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland
.| National Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to .| this incident. .| .| It
was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to .| survive, the only way it knows
how. It is interesting that we always .| kill the animal first, and then try to justify it (by
claiming it was .| the culprit) later. Among humans, you are innocent till proven guilty. . .I
don't normally like to respond to you, Troll, but this I cannot ignore. .The Mountain Lion made
itself a danger to human life and not specific danger .should EVER be ignored. It became a pest and
it was dealt with as such in .the best way possible. No single animal on Earth is worth a single
HUMAN .life.

You don't have your facts right. The mountain lion is not a "pest" or even a threat. It didn't
attack people until people started encroaching on its territory and eliminating its prey. In fact,
the mountain lion, like all predators, is an important part of its ecosystem, as any biologist (or
farmer or rancher) knows. I think most people would rather have mountain lions, than selfish people
who rip up and destroy nature.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:16:43 GMT, Strider <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:01:40 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> .wrote: . .>The fact that a
mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my view that .>(1) bicycles don't belong in our
parks and open spaces, or ANYWHERE off of .>pavement; they make it too easy for people to get into
wildlife habitat and .>disturb the wildlife whose home it is; and (2) humans don't belong
EVERYWHERE; .>wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve to have habitat .>that is
closed to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are .>dangerous to humans. Closing
the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the Cleveland .>National Forest to human access is the only
appropriate response to this .>incident. .> .>It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was
just trying to survive, the .>only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the
animal first, .>and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among humans,
.>you are innocent till proven guilty. .>=== .>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.) .> .>home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗ . .You want to put a
mountain lion on trial? . .It's an animal. It was hunting humans, not their natural prey, because
.it was hungry. It was hungry most likely because it was either sick .there are too many mountain
lions in that area.

Typical human arrogance. "Too many" for WHOM? Not for the mountain lion. Humans are the world's best
rationalizers & liars.

The answer is to .reduce the lion population to sustainable numbers.

BS. Nature handles that just fine. It's humans who need to be reduced to sustainable numbers, and
ignorant people like you would make a good start.

If left to nature, .the lions would starve, thereby reducing their numbers. A better .alternative
is regulated hunting. Dead is dead. If by starvation or .firearms, it's still dead. The cat has no
preference.

More BS. Humans don't kill the weakest, but usually the opposite.

.BTW. Humans DO belong everywhere. Nature made us the top level .predator. That's why we rule the
Earth and lions don't. If you attempt .to cut off access to wilderness areas around here then I and
others .like me will do what we can to prevent this atrocity.

Thanks for demonstrating just how arrogant and selfish mountain bikers are. By your own logic,
nature made the mountain biker vulnerable to attack by mountain lions, and therefore it's fine that
they are killed by mountain lions. You are just rationalizing what is inexcusable murder by any
rational person.

.It just ain't gonna happen. . .Strider

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 15:52:27 +1300, "Westie" <[email hidden]>
wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: .<snip> .> (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; wildlife have already lost far
.> too much habitat, and deserve to have habitat that is closed to all .> humans. . .I can't believe
it but I agree with this. If it was defined as mountain .lion habitat and fenced and closed to
humans then all good and fine. The .humans shouldn't have been there. But it wasn't, it was multi-
use and we all .know that the cat will end up the loser in that situation.

The problem is that humans define ALL of the Earth as "multi-use". They are incredibly selfish!

.>This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are dangerous to .> humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch
Wilderness Park in the Cleveland .> National Forest to human access is the only appropriate
response to .> this incident. . .Nothing wrong with that. But not all areas need to be closed or
should be .closed.

Of course. No one is recommending that.

.> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. . .No, it wasn't.

Only by humans, who don't follow their own logic. If a human kills a mountain lion, they call that
"survival of the fittest" If a mountain lion kills a uman, even if it is just trying to survive,
it's considered an aberration and "murder". You are a hypocrite.

.>It was just trying to .> survive, the only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always .>
kill the animal first, and then try to justify it (by claiming it was .> the culprit) later. Among
humans, you are innocent till proven guilty. . .Perhaps, but there are plenty of humans I'd like to
shoot on sight.

Your threat is duly noted.
===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 02:56:27 GMT, jeffbonny <[email hidden]> wrote:

.On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:06:49 -0500, "The Nelson Paradigm" .<[email hidden]> wrote: . .>
No single animal on Earth is worth a single HUMAN .>life. . .[censored]. I've met several humans whose
lives I'd trade for a good .dog's without a second thought or any remorse and so have you. . .If an
animal is sick or has acquired a taste for garbage and is .frequenting human habitation without
natural caution then there is a .case for killing it.

Only among humans.

When you go out into a creature's habitat you .take life on the terms dealt under the circumstances
and don't whine .about the consequences. Going into cougar or grizzly habitat and the .risk of a
fatal encounter with a healthy animal is no different from .skiing the backcountry and the risk of
avalanche or surfing and the .risk of sharks attack. . .Take responsibility for your actions
instead of trying to make the .backcountry into disneyland fer christsake. If you don't want to get
.eaten by wild animals don't go to where they are. . .jeffbonny .van.bc.ca .

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 03:06:54 GMT, "S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: .> The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .> my
view that (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces .{snip} . .First of all, nice
header. (Almost true in Miles' recent past.) Can we .assume you use similar diligence in all your
"research" efforts?

You can't assume anything, unless you want to be proven biased.

.Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would .be equally likely to
happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the .outrage if it HAD been hikers, and someone
suggested they deserved to be .attacked.)

You are setting up a straw man. That's pure fantasy. But typical, for a mountain biker.

.Bill "IOW, you're yet again shown to be a BIG FAT HYPOCRITE POOPY-HEAD" S.

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:10:00 GMT, "Bob" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.> wildlife have already lost far too much habitat, and deserve to have .habitat .> that is closed
to all humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for animals that are .> dangerous to humans. Closing the
Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the .Cleveland .> National Forest to human access is the only
appropriate response to this .> incident. .> .> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was
just trying to .survive, the .> only way it knows how. It is interesting that we always kill the
animal .first, .> and then try to justify it (by claiming it was the culprit) later. Among .humans,
.> you are innocent till proven guilty. . .Wrong again, Mikey. The only "appropriate response" in
this, or any similar .cases, is education of the masses in the ways of nature. The law of the
.natural world is Kill Or Be Killed.

BS. There is nothing natural about shooting a mountain lion. That is just human arrogance &
rationalization.

If an animal does not kill something to .survive (even a plant that the mouse eats) then something
else will come .along and kill it, or even worse, the animal will starve to death. If human .beings
are not aware of what can go wrong in a certain set of circumstances, .then there will ALWAYS be
some mishaps between "animals" and "humans". .(Though I do get a little fuzzy right about here. Are
we not animals .ourselves?) And as for your statement "It is interesting that we always kill .the
animal first", this again, is shown by the proof of our evolved, genetic .code. If some animal
threatens or endangers ANY member of the "Tribe", then .the only response to continued survival and
growth of the Tribe is the .extermination of that threat.

You missed my point. They had no proof, WHEN THEY SHOT IT, that it was the culprit.

This is a very deeply imbedded trait that .cannot be wished away, nor would I want it to go away.
This trait is what .keeps the majority of us from killing our offspring the first time they do
.something that displeases us. My own son is 19 and in college, and God help .the imbecile that
would harm him, because I will retaliate in any manner .that I deem appropriate, whether legal or
otherwise. You do not hurt the .flesh of my flesh! This is the very same trait that does allow us
an .awakening concern for others not of our own species. But it has nothing to .do with restricting
our species, as you so fervently hope for.

Your threat is duly noted.

.> 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.) . .Your
closing statement (signature line), by using words that indicate .past-tense, indicate that you have
given up the fight for "auto dependence .and road construction". The question that arises here is,
why did you give .up? Did you lose there, too?

Where do you see "given up"? You are fantasizing again. But typical, for a mountain biker.

.> home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

===
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.)

home.pacbell.netmjvandeOpen ↗

"Mike Vandeman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:06:49 -0500, "The Nelson Paradigm" <[email hidden]> wrote:

.Mike Vandeman wrote: .| The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms .| my
view that (1) bicycles don't belong in our parks and open spaces, .| or ANYWHERE off of pavement;
they make it too easy for people to get .| into wildlife habitat and disturb the wildlife whose
home it is; and .| (2) humans don't belong EVERYWHERE; wildlife have already lost far .| too much
habitat, and deserve to have habitat that is closed to all .| humans. This is ESPECIALLY true for
animals that are dangerous to .| humans. Closing the Whiting Ranch Wilderness Park in the
Cleveland .| National Forest to human access is the only appropriate response to .| this incident.
.| .| It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. It was just trying to .| survive, the only way
it knows how. It is interesting that we always .| kill the animal first, and then try to justify
it (by claiming it was .| the culprit) later. Among humans, you are innocent till proven guilty. .
.I don't normally like to respond to you, Troll, but this I cannot ignore. .The Mountain Lion made
itself a danger to human life and not specific

danger

Quoted message said:

.should EVER be ignored. It became a pest and it was dealt with as such

in

Quoted message said:

.the best way possible. No single animal on Earth is worth a single HUMAN .life.

You don't have your facts right. The mountain lion is not a "pest"

Any animal that threatens human safety or health is, at the very least a pest. Human life has
supremacy.

---
International Bicycle 5326 E Independence Blvd Charlotte, NC 28212 intbike.comintbike.comOpen ↗ 704 535-5501

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 -
Release Date: 12/26/03

An interesting recent book is the "Beast in the Garden" by the National Public Radio outdoors
correspondent. His contention is that subarban growth introduced lush habitat of parks and trees are
garden. First come the lion prey like rabbits and deer, and then the lions themselves. The lions
become aclimated to humans when thye arent hunted, and a few will attack full-size humans
themselves. He uses the example of Boulder Colorado, a fairly barren ranch area until the creation
of the college in 1976. Then came the upscale professorville with lots of parks and trees. The first
deer returned in the 1980s and lions spotted in 1987. A 2nd or 3rd generation lion then ate a high
school jogger in 1991.

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 14:44:13 GMT, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

.> It was INEXCUSABLE to kill the mountain lion. . .No, it wasn't.

Only by humans, who don't follow their own logic. If a human kills a mountain lion, they call that
"survival of the fittest" If a mountain lion kills a uman, even if it is just trying to survive,
it's considered an aberration and "murder". You are a hypocrite.

Please cite *anyone* who's described the mountain lion as a "murderer".

I eagerly await your response.

Doug

Mike Vandeman wrote: <[censored]>

Quoted message said:

BS. Nature handles that just fine. It's humans who need to be reduced to sustainable numbers, and
ignorant people like you would make a good start.

I recommend that it be you to take up the mantle of reducing all those evil and ignorant humans to
sustainable numbers.

Additionally, please do be sure to get caught.

On another note, FU.

"S o r n i" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mike Vandeman said:

The fact that a mountain lion is attacking mountain bikers confirms my view that (1) bicycles
don't belong in our parks and open spaces

{snip}

First of all, nice header. (Almost true in Miles' recent past.) Can we assume you use similar
diligence in all your "research" efforts?

In this case, I'm sure that some peer somewhere reviewed it and said,

Quoted message said:

Second of all, these encounters were in a *very* accessible location. Would be equally likely to
happen to hikers as bikers. (I can just imagine the outrage if it HAD been hikers, and someone
suggested they deserved to be attacked.)

The person wasn't riding a bike at the time of the attack, so therefore the cat did attack a
hiker. Duh.

Quoted message said:

Bill "IOW, you're yet again shown to be a BIG FAT HYPOCRITE POOPY-HEAD" S.

Oooo, now there's a rebuttal that Mike can understand. Good one.

VerySoCal LBS recommendations, William?
--
Jonesy