A Lesson from Florida: It's Time for Regime Change!



Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
> .their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
> .their activity.
>
> If there are enough humans, they leave permanently. Or die, from lack of usable
> habitat.

That's not the focus of the study or the findings of the authors.

> .> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
> .> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
> .> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
> .> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
> .> .for not mowing.
> .>
> .> 12% of my property.
> .
> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
>
> Irrelevant.

Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
question with an honest answer?

> .I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
> .deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
> .not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
> .weather practices of mountain bikers.
>
> They have the same effect, regardless of snow or lack of it.

Healthy, well fed animals can tolerate a lot more human intrusion than
can stock weakened by lack of easily accessible forage due to deep
snow.

> God, you are slow!

Again, insults add nothing to the discussion.

> .> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
> .> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
> .> .predator.
> .>
> .> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
> .> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.
> .
> .And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
> .other animals?
>
> Irrelevant.

Not at all. Remember how, when Bob the cat would go out in the yard,
the squirrels barked at him and the birds scolded him? In the wild,
they react the same way to deer, bobcats, humans and all other animals
that come into their territory.

> .I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
> .provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
> .mountain biker.
>
> I didn't extrapolate. Can't you read?

Yes, Michael, I can read. What is more important, I can comprehend
what is written by real wildlife biologists. They made no case for
requiring humans to stay completely out of wildlife habitat. You made
that leap.

**** Durbin
Going to the lake in my subdivision to put up Wood Duck nesting boxes.
 

> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
>
> Irrelevant.

Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
question with an honest answer?


It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be considered human free.
If I ride my bike in the mountains, and always keep a distance of more than 20' from any animal, Mike would not think that is good enough. Therefore his own "human free" area is irrelevant, from the viewpoint of the wildlife.
 
On 21 Oct 2004 13:51:12 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .That the transitory presence of a human does not drive wildlife off
..> .their range permanently. They move off a certain distance then resume
..> .their activity.
..>
..> If there are enough humans, they leave permanently. Or die, from lack of usable
..> habitat.
..
..That's not the focus of the study or the findings of the authors.

See _Wildlife and Recreationists_.

..> .> .Not at all irrelevant. If you live on 100 acres and set aside 50
..> .> .acres you have done something impressive. If you live on a typical
..> .> .American lot of 60' by 120' and you set aside the back yard as off
..> .> .limits to humans, you have done little except ******** the neighbors
..> .> .for not mowing.
..> .>
..> .> 12% of my property.
..> .
..> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
..>
..> Irrelevant.
..
..Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
..question with an honest answer?

I just did.

..> .I'm not aware of mountain bikers getting into deer or elk range when
..> .deep snow is making it hard for the animals to forage. Of course, I'm
..> .not a mountain biker and I live in Florida so I am not up on the cold
..> .weather practices of mountain bikers.
..>
..> They have the same effect, regardless of snow or lack of it.
..
..Healthy, well fed animals can tolerate a lot more human intrusion than
..can stock weakened by lack of easily accessible forage due to deep
..snow.

So what?

..> God, you are slow!
..
..Again, insults add nothing to the discussion.

But true.

..> .> .By observing which species can accept what level of human intrusion.
..> .> .Keep in mind that, to wildlife, humans are no different than a
..> .> .predator.
..> .>
..> .> BS. There are lots of reasons they don't like having us around, e.g. scaring
..> .> birds off the nest, which alerts predators to its location.
..> .
..> .And you think that birds react differently to humans than they do
..> .other animals?
..>
..> Irrelevant.
..
..Not at all. Remember how, when Bob the cat would go out in the yard,
..the squirrels barked at him and the birds scolded him? In the wild,
..they react the same way to deer, bobcats, humans and all other animals
..that come into their territory.

Your point being?

..> .I said the paper was good, not your extrapolations from the data
..> .provided by the scientists. As I told you before, I'm a roadie, not a
..> .mountain biker.
..>
..> I didn't extrapolate. Can't you read?
..
..Yes, Michael, I can read. What is more important, I can comprehend
..what is written by real wildlife biologists. They made no case for
..requiring humans to stay completely out of wildlife habitat. You made
..that leap.

I wasn't using that paper to argue for that, but it DOES prove that ALL
recreationists have an impact on wildlife, so it would be better (for elk, in
this case) to ban humans. QED

..**** Durbin
..Going to the lake in my subdivision to put up Wood Duck nesting boxes.

===
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
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> See _Wildlife and Recreationists_.

I trust you mean "Wildlife and Recreationists - Coexistence Through
Management and Research". Check out Chapter 11. Cole and Landres
have some real-life examples of how to manage for both wildlife and
human recreation including restrictions on the amount of use,
restrictions on the type of use, restrictions on the spatial
distribution of use, and enhancing site durability.

Here's an example, "To illustrate, trails and campgrounds might be
situated away from critical strips of riparian vegetation, while
periodic opportunities for visitors to access the watercourses they
find so attractive are maintained."

> I wasn't using that paper to argue for that, but it DOES prove that ALL
> recreationists have an impact on wildlife, so it would be better (for elk, in
> this case) to ban humans. QED

Ideally, for all wildlife, it would be better if we were not around.
We are here, however. It's a fact of life and there is not much
possibility that we are all going to go back to Olduvai Gorge or
wherever it was that we evolved into humans.

I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.

**** Durbin
 
Mr_Kingkillaha <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
> >
> > Irrelevant.
>
> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
> question with an honest answer?
>
>
> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
> considered human free.
> If I ride my bike in the mountains, and always keep a distance of more
> than 20' from any animal, Mike would not think that is good enough.
> Therefore his own "human free" area is irrelevant, from the viewpoint
> of the wildlife.

You just saved me the trouble of making that point to him. Thanks.
 
On 22 Oct 2004 07:44:20 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> See _Wildlife and Recreationists_.
..
..I trust you mean "Wildlife and Recreationists - Coexistence Through
..Management and Research". Check out Chapter 11. Cole and Landres
..have some real-life examples of how to manage for both wildlife and
..human recreation including restrictions on the amount of use,
..restrictions on the type of use, restrictions on the spatial
..distribution of use, and enhancing site durability.
..
..Here's an example, "To illustrate, trails and campgrounds might be
..situated away from critical strips of riparian vegetation, while
..periodic opportunities for visitors to access the watercourses they
..find so attractive are maintained."

They are suggesting a compromise, but the entire book is a litany of reasons why
"coexistence" is harmful to wildlife. The subtitle is politics, NOT science!

..> I wasn't using that paper to argue for that, but it DOES prove that ALL
..> recreationists have an impact on wildlife, so it would be better (for elk, in
..> this case) to ban humans. QED
..
..Ideally, for all wildlife, it would be better if we were not around.

Glad you agree.

..We are here, however. It's a fact of life and there is not much
..possibility that we are all going to go back to Olduvai Gorge or
..wherever it was that we evolved into humans.
..
..I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
..biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
.. The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
..willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.

That seems to be a euphemism for "compromise the welfare of wildlife". We may
have to compromise "on the ground", but there's no reason to compromise on
telling the truth.

..**** Durbin

===
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
 
On 22 Oct 2004 11:08:54 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mr_Kingkillaha <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> > .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
..> >
..> > Irrelevant.
..>
..> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
..> question with an honest answer?
..>
..>
..> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
..> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
..> considered human free.

Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch off-limits to
all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with "off-limits to all humans". The
former is only temporarily human-free. The latter is human-free by agreement and
law.

..> If I ride my bike in the mountains, and always keep a distance of more
..> than 20' from any animal, Mike would not think that is good enough.

Because there's nothing to prevent you from going off-trail.

..> Therefore his own "human free" area is irrelevant, from the viewpoint
..> of the wildlife.

Not for the wildlife that live there. They have something no other wildlife in
the world have: guaranteed safety.

..You just saved me the trouble of making that point to him. Thanks.

===
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
 
QUOTE=Mike VandemanOn 22 Oct 2004 11:08:54 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:
..Mr_Kingkillaha <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> > .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres?
..> > Irrelevant.
..> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer the
..> question with an honest answer?
..> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
..> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
..> considered human free.
..Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch off-limits to
..all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with "off-limits to all humans". ..The former is only temporarily human-free. The latter is human-free by ..agreement and law.

No, I have not confused anything except you. The purpose of "off limits to humans" is to acheive a state of "human free".
Yes, that area is off-limits to humans. But any wildlife in that area, being 20' away from a human, isn't going to feel safer than standing 30' from a mountain bike trail. Your yard is not "human-free", therefore it is no better than my yard, which is not "off-limits to humans".
You can say how it is the only one, and it is significant, but do the animals really give a **** how you feel? Are there more animals in your yard than your neighbors?


....> If I ride my bike in the mountains, and always keep a distance of more
....> than 20' from any animal, Mike would not think that is good enough.
....Because there's nothing to prevent you from going off-trail.


I know it is hard for you to believe, but some people ARE decent.


....> Therefore his own "human free" area is irrelevant, from the viewpoint
....> of the wildlife.
....Not for the wildlife that live there. They have something no other wildlife in
....the world have: guaranteed safety.


"Guaranteed safety"?! A child can chuck a rock more than 20' feet, right into a squirrels head. With an area that small, no wildlife will ever realize that it IS human-free.
I do think that there should be SOME human free areas (obviously bigger ones). You would do good to accomplish that. However, I do not think ALL areas of wilderness should be human-free. You may have never "said" that they should, but that is how you come across, and that is why people become hostile with you.


....You just saved me the trouble of making that point to him. Thanks.


Sorry I did not mean to steal your argument, but he was never going to answer your question, even after someone else and I have posted it before. Just remember: We are all on the same team, thats how Mikey wants it.


====
eye iz workin an creaytin wildlif habidat dat iz of-limits ta
hoomans ("per habidat"). Wan ta hellp? (eye spen tha preveus 8
yeers fiting ato dipindince an rowd cunstrukshon.)
 
Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> .I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
> .biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
> . The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
> .willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.
>
> That seems to be a euphemism for "compromise the welfare of wildlife". We may
> have to compromise "on the ground", but there's no reason to compromise on
> telling the truth.

If you are unwilling to compromise to help wildlife, you will do no
good for them. Read "Wildlife -- and Everyone Else -- Gains if
Critics and Supporters Compromise" by William Robert Irvin, director
of U.S. conservation at the World Wildlife Fund.
http://www.shewolfworks.com/wolfsong/news/Alaska_current_events_787.htm
 
On 19 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .> .> and if
> .> .> .you don't like it, there's nothing you can do. You don't really
> .> own .> your .property. Think about it: You have to pay for it in
> .> property .> taxes every .year, and it can be seized from you at any
> .> time. That's .> not ownership, .that's rental.
> .> .>
> .> .> You are free to call it whatever you want. Someone who is
> .> eventually .> going to die can't be said to "own" property, anyway:
> .> your "ownership .> ends with your death.
> .> .
> .> .Indeed. So what?
> .>
> .> Private property is BS.
> .
> .Why?
>
> Cottage cheese. There is no other possibility. DUH!

IFYPFY.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On 22 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres? .> >
> .> > Irrelevant.
> .>
> .> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer
> the .> question with an honest answer?
> .>
> .>
> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
> .> considered human free.
>
> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily human-free.
> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.

You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to enter
your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an invisible
force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! IT'S AGAINST
THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard and vomited a
couple times. I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your weed-
patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that deliberately go out
and break stupid laws, for fun. There are millions of acres of forest in
the US that are more "off-limits to all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 00:05:12 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 22 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
..noise emerged:
..
..> .Twelve percent of what? Ten thousand square feet? Ten acres? .> >
..> .> > Irrelevant.
..> .>
..> .> Refer to my previous statement. What harm would it do to answer
..> the .> question with an honest answer?
..> .>
..> .>
..> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously 20' X
..> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too small to be
..> .> considered human free.
..>
..> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
..> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
..> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily human-free.
..> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.
..
..You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
..something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to enter
..your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an invisible
..force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT! IT'S AGAINST
..THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard and vomited a
..couple times.

You shuldn't talk about your brother like that.

I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
..There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your weed-
..patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that deliberately go out
..and break stupid laws, for fun. There are millions of acres of forest in
..the US that are more "off-limits to all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.

You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits to humans,
not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The latter is impossible.
===
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
 
On 23 Oct 2004 17:46:51 -0700, [email protected] (**** Durbin) wrote:

..Mike Vandeman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
..> .I believe that the cause of conservation and maintenance of
..> .biodiversity requires that we work toward reasonably attainable goals.
..> . The world needs visionaries, Michael, but visionaries with the
..> .willingness and ability to work with others to attain that vision.
..>
..> That seems to be a euphemism for "compromise the welfare of wildlife". We may
..> have to compromise "on the ground", but there's no reason to compromise on
..> telling the truth.
..
..If you are unwilling to compromise to help wildlife, you will do no
..good for them. Read "Wildlife -- and Everyone Else -- Gains if
..Critics and Supporters Compromise" by William Robert Irvin, director
..of U.S. conservation at the World Wildlife Fund.
..http://www.shewolfworks.com/wolfsong/news/Alaska_current_events_787.htm

I don't agree.
===
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
 
On 26 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously
> 20' X .> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too
> small to be .> .> considered human free.
> .>
> .> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
> .> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
> .> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily
> human-free. .> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.
> .
> .You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
> .something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to
> enter .your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an
> invisible .force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
> IT'S AGAINST .THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard
> and vomited a .couple times.
>
> You shuldn't talk about your brother like that.

I've heard Vandeman compared to a four-year-old, but this is ridiculous.
Even if I had a brother, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an
insult.

> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your
> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits to
> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
>
> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits to
> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The latter
> is impossible.

Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent plastic
sign it's written on.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 06:57:22 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 26 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
..noise emerged:
..
..> .> .> It would do plenty of harm to his arguments. It is seriously
..> 20' X .> .> 20'. Taken from his own website. It is actually too
..> small to be .> .> considered human free.
..> .>
..> .> Says who? In the rest of the world, there isn't one square inch
..> .> off-limits to all humans. You are confusing "human-free" with
..> .> "off-limits to all humans". The former is only temporarily
..> human-free. .> The latter is human-free by agreement and law.
..> .
..> .You seem to have this notion, common among statists, that law is
..> .something real and tangible. You act as if someone attempting to
..> enter .your "off-limits to all humans" yard would be turned back by an
..> invisible .force-field and a blaring voice saying "YOU CAN'T DO THAT!
..> IT'S AGAINST .THE LAW!" Last week a drunk wandered into my front yard
..> and vomited a .couple times.
..>
..> You shuldn't talk about your brother like that.
..
..I've heard Vandeman compared to a four-year-old, but this is ridiculous.
..Even if I had a brother, I'm not sure how this is supposed to be an
..insult.
..
..> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
..> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in your
..> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
..> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
..> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits to
..> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
..>
..> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits to
..> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The latter
..> is impossible.
..
..Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent plastic
..sign it's written on.

Yes, for scofflaws like you and other mountain bikers.
===
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
 
QUOTE=Mike Vandeman

..Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent plastic
..sign it's written on.

Yes, for scofflaws like you and other hikers.
===
I am working on creating turds that are safe for human consumption ("pure *****"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8 years eating ****, then spewing it out of my mouth.)
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
 
On 31 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> .> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
> .> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in
> your .> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
> .> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
> .> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits to
> .> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
> .>
> .> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits
> to .> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The
> latter .> is impossible.
> .
> .Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent
> plastic .sign it's written on.
>
> Yes, for scofflaws like you and other mountain bikers.

Oh, I see. So, um... supposing I am a "scofflaw", what's to prevent me
from ripping down your sign and trampling your weed patch? You haven't
really answered the question, have you?

Also, for the 8th time, I am not a mountain biker.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]

Since this seems to be so popular:

===
I am working on creating squirrel habitat that is "protected" from humans
by a bailing wire fence ("weed patch"). Want to help? (I spent the
previous 8 years not mowing my lawn and trying to verbally convince
termites not to eat my house.)
 
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:37:04 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]> wrote:

..On 31 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
..noise emerged:
..
..> .> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
..> .> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in
..> your .> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
..> .> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
..> .> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits to
..> .> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
..> .>
..> .> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it off-limits
..> to .> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go there. The
..> latter .> is impossible.
..> .
..> .Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent
..> plastic .sign it's written on.
..>
..> Yes, for scofflaws like you and other mountain bikers.
..
..Oh, I see. So, um... supposing I am a "scofflaw", what's to prevent me
..from ripping down your sign and trampling your weed patch?

The law. Something you obviously have no respect for.

You haven't
..really answered the question, have you?
..
..Also, for the 8th time, I am not a mountain biker.

Then why do you act just like one???
===
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
 
On 01 Nov 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
noise emerged:

> On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 08:37:04 GMT, Scott Burley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> .On 31 Oct 2004, the cheeks of Mike Vandeman parted, and a trumpetous
> .noise emerged:
> .
> .> .> I only saw him out the front window as he staggered off.
> .> .> .There's nothing to prevent something similar from happening in
> .> your .> weed- .patch. Hell, in the Bay Area, there are groups that
> .> .> deliberately go out .and break stupid laws, for fun. There are
> .> .> millions of acres of forest in .the US that are more "off-limits
> to .> .> all humans" than your 400 sq. feet.
> .> .>
> .> .> You missed the point, as usual. The point is to make it
> off-limits .> to .> humans, not to make it IMPOSSIBLE for humans to go
> there. The .> latter .> is impossible.
> .> .
> .> .Then what's the point? "Keep Out" is only as good as the 49 cent
> .> plastic .sign it's written on.
> .>
> .> Yes, for scofflaws like you and other mountain bikers.
> .
> .Oh, I see. So, um... supposing I am a "scofflaw", what's to prevent
> me .from ripping down your sign and trampling your weed patch?
>
> The law. Something you obviously have no respect for.

So suppose I have no respect for the law. What's to prevent me from
ripping down the sign and trampling your weed patch? You STILL haven't
answered the question.

--
__ __ _ ___ ___
/ _|/ _/ |_ _|_ _|
\_ ( (( o | | | |
|__/\__\_/|_| |_|

[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

NewRiderMan
A hard lesson learned.
Replies
0
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
NewRiderMan
NewRiderMan
S
OT: harsh lesson to learn (roids)
Replies
9
Views
306
Mountain Bikes
Slack
S
M
OT. Lesson Learned.
Replies
20
Views
1K
Mountain Bikes
jem
J
M
  • Locked
A lesson from Pete (first aid)
Replies
42
Views
2K
Mountain Bikes
Dave W
D
S
  • Locked
(OT) Pre-nup "Lesson" for Shaun
Replies
6
Views
953
Mountain Bikes
Bomba
B
Top Bottom Back