Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

"Divisive Issue"

Started by Mike Vandeman · · Last activity · 95 posts · 3,571 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
22 February 2007
Last activity
6 April 2007
Original author
Mike Vandeman
Posts
95
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,571
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 61–80 of 95
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:33:08 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Sat, 3 Mar 2007 13:14:50 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    >>>
    >>> Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!
    >>
    >>Just a few from a quick search:
    >>
    >>May 2002:
    >>"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
    >>killed
    >>by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
    >>small
    >>animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."
    >
    > "Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
    > torment". QED
    >
    > It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
    > it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
    > of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
    > everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
    > you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
    Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
    term.

    According to Webster, you are WRONG. Just like everything else you
    say! ... Too bad you blew your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to prove me
    wrong. c'est la vie.


    I don't have to prove you wrong. You do that all by yourself. I (and others)
    only point to the truth in the examples of your lies you so willingly
    provide either by being blind by your own bias against this particular
    activity or by being a complete imbecile. Since actual research, references
    and evidence posted over the years shows your opinions are clearly mistaken
    and you continue on the same course, the only possible conclusion is the
    latter.

    According to Webster, "murder" is the deliberate killing of one human by
    another.

    That's not the only definition, as I quoted for you.

    Goodbye, Sour Grapes.

    Secondary definitions apply to popular speech and slang.

    Quoted message said:

    Beyond that, you still have NOT qualified the statement concerning
    "thousands of small animals every week" or quantified the statement in
    regards to the depth of small creatures killed by hikers in the same time
    frame or nullified your "murder" of small creatures with every step you
    take.
    Until you establish the FACTS of your statement in total with relevant and
    verifiable sources (IE: NOT your opinions or assumptions), it is a NON-FACT
    statement.

    And - You STILL ignore the obvious LIES and NON-FACTS of the statements
    documented from you concerning the remainder of the post as is stated below.
    By ignoring it you only CONFIRM the LIES as posted by YOU.

    Quoted message said:


    Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
    "murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
    than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT provided
    ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
    animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
    statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
    activities.
    You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence to
    support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT (lies)
    statements on your part:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Sept 2006:
    "It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
    cheap thrills."
    The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
    The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you state
    "mountain bikers" destroyed it.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Jan 2007:
    In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
    response:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    "Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
    the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
    Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
    Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
    stole a bicycle to get away.
    In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
    one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
    mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
    legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
    Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
    yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
    serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
    the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
    And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
    unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
    no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
    a direct question"

    These represent statements made by you and your repeated attempts to
    disregard or discard them only shows the continued depth of your dishonesty
    and lack of integrity in EVERY statement and claim you make.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
    anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
    proven by the tactics of your replies.


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are
    fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande



    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  2. In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

    Quoted message said:


    Bob Berger said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

    Quoted message said:


    On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >> >>"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
    >> >>of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
    >> >>relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.
    >>
    >> >That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
    >> >agree with him. Man's
    >> >superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
    >> >but do not take him out of the natural equation.
    >>
    >> So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
    >> opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.
    >
    >I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
    >observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
    >developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
    >increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
    >as some extranatural being.

    I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
    IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
    rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
    Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.

    >> >Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
    >> >naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
    >> >exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.
    >>
    >> You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
    >> the day you arrive! DUH!
    >
    >I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
    >your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
    >nothing magic in being a native species.

    I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
    scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
    So you are just WRONG.

    >> Early man expanded his
    >>
    >> >range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
    >> >shelter - natural drives.
    >>
    >> >For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
    >> >man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
    >> >accept that definition, but scientists do.
    >>
    >> It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
    >> to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
    >> exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).
    >
    >The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
    >organism got here.

    As well as how long it has been there.

    One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
    least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
    many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

    What's wrong with that?

    By being redefined so broadly (1,000,000 years in the new area before a species
    is considered not an exotic) the term loses its ability to communicate to the
    reader the condition it is customarily intended to describe. My suggestion would
    have been for you to create a new term rather than redefine an existing one.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
    right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

    "RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently
    extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It
    should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative).

    But the gray wolf (canis lupus), which is native to Eurasia, didn't enter North
    America until 300,000 or less years ago. It is thus, by your definition of the
    term (must be present in the new area for 1,000,000+ years), an exotic.

    Why in this case should the gray wolf be considered native (not an exotic) to
    the Yellowstone region?

    Bob

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Bob

    Quoted message said:

    >Would you have us ship back to Asia any animals that came across the
    >Bering Strait or ship back to South America any animal that expanded
    >its range north into North America? The fact that they did not evolve
    >here does not give them any less right to exist here.

    Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
    be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

    >> >I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
    >> >are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
    >> >http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/TibPages/tib-burial.html It seems
    >> >to be in closest harmony with nature.
    >>
    >> But I see that you don't offer to practice it.
    >
    >It is my understanding that it would not be permitted in America.

    No excuse.

    >> >This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
    >> >preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
    >> >Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:
    >>
    >> >"Conservation & Preservation
    >>
    >> >"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use the
    >> >words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
    >> >confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
    >> >exist.
    >> >Conservation is the sustainable use
    >>
    >> That is a nice-sounding concept that has no basis in reality: it
    >> doesn't exist!
    >
    >Get your head out of books and into the real world and you will see
    >that it does. As Yogi Berra said, "You can learn a lot by watching."

    Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
    of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande


    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
    of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

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

    Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:33:08 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>>>
    >>>> Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!
    >>>
    >>>Just a few from a quick search:
    >>>
    >>>May 2002:
    >>>"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
    >>>killed
    >>>by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
    >>>small
    >>>animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."
    >>
    >> "Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
    >> torment". QED
    >>
    >> It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
    >> it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
    >> of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
    >> everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
    >> you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
    >Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
    >term.

    According to Webster, you are WRONG. Just like everything else you
    say! ... Too bad you blew your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to prove me
    wrong. c'est la vie.


    I don't have to prove you wrong. You do that all by yourself. I (and
    others)
    only point to the truth in the examples of your lies you so willingly
    provide either by being blind by your own bias against this particular
    activity or by being a complete imbecile. Since actual research,
    references
    and evidence posted over the years shows your opinions are clearly
    mistaken
    and you continue on the same course, the only possible conclusion is the
    latter.

    According to Webster, "murder" is the deliberate killing of one human by
    another.

    That's not the only definition, as I quoted for you.

    Goodbye, Sour Grapes.

    Of course it is not the "only" definition as is referenced below... Can't
    you read? It is written in English and everything: "popular speech and
    slang"...
    As for the rest of the statements below which you cowardly ignore.... I
    suppose it is easier for you to believe your own nonsense of false
    statements, lies and misleading characterizations rather than even ATTEMPT
    to show some integrity. Your NON-FACTS are documented time and time again.
    The FACT that you know of your lies is OBVIOUS by your avoidance of the
    truth when it is placed right in front of you.

    Quoted message said:


    Secondary definitions apply to popular speech and slang.

    Quoted message said:

    Beyond that, you still have NOT qualified the statement concerning
    "thousands of small animals every week" or quantified the statement in
    regards to the depth of small creatures killed by hikers in the same time
    frame or nullified your "murder" of small creatures with every step you
    take.
    Until you establish the FACTS of your statement in total with relevant and
    verifiable sources (IE: NOT your opinions or assumptions), it is a
    NON-FACT
    statement.

    And - You STILL ignore the obvious LIES and NON-FACTS of the statements
    documented from you concerning the remainder of the post as is stated
    below.
    By ignoring it you only CONFIRM the LIES as posted by YOU.

    Quoted message said:


    Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
    "murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
    than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT
    provided
    ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
    animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
    statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
    activities.
    You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence
    to
    support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.

    Quoted message said:

    >


    You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT
    (lies)
    statements on your part:

    Quoted message said:

    >


    Sept 2006:
    "It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
    cheap thrills."
    The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
    The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you
    state
    "mountain bikers" destroyed it.

    Quoted message said:

    >


    Jan 2007:
    In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
    response:

    Quoted message said:

    >


    "Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area
    when
    the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
    Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
    Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
    stole a bicycle to get away.
    In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism
    remains
    one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except
    for
    mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
    legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
    Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
    yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
    serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly
    abandoned
    the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
    And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
    unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
    no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away
    from
    a direct question"

    These represent statements made by you and your repeated attempts to
    disregard or discard them only shows the continued depth of your
    dishonesty
    and lack of integrity in EVERY statement and claim you make.

    Quoted message said:

    >
    >You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
    >anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
    >proven by the tactics of your replies.
    >
    ===

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

    Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:56:10 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >> >>"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the
    >> >>rest
    >> >>of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
    >> >>relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.
    >>
    >> >That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
    >> >agree with him. Man's
    >> >superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other
    >> >animals,
    >> >but do not take him out of the natural equation.
    >>
    >> So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
    >> opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.
    >
    >I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
    >observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
    >developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
    >increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
    >as some extranatural being.

    I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
    IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
    rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
    Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.


    Humans are also along the top of the food chain, have "migrated" just as
    many other animals have done and carry no more guilt for doing so than
    does
    any other animal.

    Only those who WALKED here have even a tiny right to be here. That
    leaves out 99.44% of the population, including you.


    And what of the "wildlife" that currently exists here that did not "walk"
    here in their own lifetime? Are they to be vilified also or do they get a
    pass simply because they do not have the capacity to understand fictitious
    boundaries?

    Quoted message said:


    Get over it.

    Quoted message said:

    Your opinion has no weight as you are a proven liar.

    Hasn't happened yet!


    Yes - it has. Numerous times and very recently:
    "Jan 2007:
    In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
    response:
    January '07, for instance -
    "Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
    the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
    Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
    Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
    stole a bicycle to get away.
    In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism remains
    one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except for
    mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
    legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
    Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
    yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
    serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly abandoned
    the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
    And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
    unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
    no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away from
    a direct question"

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    >> >Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator
    >> >that
    >> >naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
    >> >exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.
    >>
    >> You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
    >> the day you arrive! DUH!
    >
    >I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
    >your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
    >nothing magic in being a native species.

    I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
    scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
    So you are just WRONG.


    That is your CLAIM that no one has objected. That means nothing. Provide
    actual comments and reviews of your statements made at these "conferences"
    which can be verified. If you can not, your claim of "no objection" is
    MEANINGLESS.

    Still waiting!

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    >> Early man expanded his
    >>
    >> >range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
    >> >shelter - natural drives.
    >>
    >> >For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
    >> >man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
    >> >accept that definition, but scientists do.
    >>
    >> It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
    >> to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
    >> exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).
    >
    >The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
    >organism got here.

    As well as how long it has been there.


    Every migrated species is "exotic" at one time or another. Humans carry no
    more a distinction of "exotic" as does any other species that has moved
    about for whatever reason.

    Then why not admit that we are exotic. But more than that: invasive,
    implying that we are veryu destructive to otrher species.


    Where do I say humans are not "exotic"? I only state humans are no more
    "exotic" than other migrating species. Can't you read?

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Would you have us ship back to Asia any animals that came across the
    >Bering Strait or ship back to South America any animal that expanded
    >its range north into North America? The fact that they did not evolve
    >here does not give them any less right to exist here.

    Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
    be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.


    Perhaps the other animal species that have migrated beyond their origin
    need
    to be "read their rights".... If they could understand them... Or could
    have the capacity to care when it concerns the availability of their next
    meal or mate.
    Humans move about. Get over it.

    Then why try to rationalize it? By your logic, anything that humans
    feel like doing is acceptable. It's NOT. DUH!


    I'm not rationalizing, moron. I am simply stating the FACT that animal
    species move about and boundaries are merely a figment of our creation. The
    human capacity to understand terms such as "impact" does not alter the FACT
    of the current human presence on this continent. It is you that is
    rationalizing fact in an attempt to build a foundation for opinions you
    already hold.

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> >I rather prefer the Tibetan sky burial where the bodies of the dead
    >> >are offered to the vultures. Read about it at
    >> >http://www.ciolek.com/WWWVLPages/TibPages/tib-burial.html It seems
    >> >to be in closest harmony with nature.
    >>
    >> But I see that you don't offer to practice it.
    >
    >It is my understanding that it would not be permitted in America.

    No excuse.


    Same argument applies for persistant ignorance but that has never held you
    back from making yourself a poster child for the term "moron".

    Quoted message said:


    >> >This all boils down to whether one is a conservationist or a
    >> >preservationist. I am a conservationist. You are a preservationist.
    >> >Here's a pretty good explanation of the difference:
    >>
    >> >"Conservation & Preservation
    >>
    >> >"Those who are concerned with protecting the environment often use
    >> >the
    >> >words conservation and preservation. These two terms are often
    >> >confused and are used to mean the same thing, although differences
    >> >exist.
    >> >Conservation is the sustainable use
    >>
    >> That is a nice-sounding concept that has no basis in reality: it
    >> doesn't exist!
    >
    >Get your head out of books and into the real world and you will see
    >that it does. As Yogi Berra said, "You can learn a lot by watching."

    Show me even ONE "sustainable use", then.


    Your narrow and self-defined version of "sustainable" is impossible to
    satisfy.

    Thanks for agreeing with me.


    I agree that your version of "sustainable" is self-defined by you and has no
    basis in reality.

    Quoted message said:


    However, the cooperative efforts of several organizations and user

    Quoted message said:

    groups has given way to rulings and useage guidelines that provide for
    growing solutions available for providing human reach and access as well
    as
    protection of wildlife.

    You are lying. All they provide is a figleaf for harmful activities.


    You side-step reality. And I am not lying. My above statement is true.
    Cooperative efforts are in place. Solutions for protection and access are
    being realized. User groups of varying backgrounds are coming together for
    better efforts. Where is the lie?

    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

    You, however, ignore these positive steps taken and insist on applying
    your
    definitions and opinions. With so much more at stake concerning expanded
    construction and wasted space you remain hinged on your unfounded spout of
    misinformation about BICYCLES. It is PATHETIC.

    No misinformation whatsoever. You are LYING again --
    characteristically, without a shred of evidence.

    Your OPINION of my statements is of no consequence. The TRUTH is in the
    evidence of the cooperative efforts being combined by differing user groups
    as well as the actual recognition by the agencies that have seen the REAL
    research, spoken to the REAL researchers and scientists and have left you
    out of the loop as an unnecessary "middleman" pedaling useless "reviews".

    Quoted message said:

    ===

  5. S Curtiss said:


    Of course ...

    ....it's only a weak, obvious troll that you fall for every time he
    posts it. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can spot the
    deliberately provocative statements made by MJV at every turn.

    And thanks to you, the thread bumps to the top of the list and grows
    longer as he strings you along to the inevitable "yawn" or "did you
    say something" capitulation when he gets tired of stringing you along.

    Steve - for the love of all that's holy - please don't bother any
    more. Even the dumbest readers of Vandedrivel(tm) can spot how
    egotistic it all is. And you're just feeding it.

    E.P.

  6. "Ed Pirrero" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    S Curtiss said:


    Of course ...

    ...it's only a weak, obvious troll that you fall for every time he
    posts it. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together can spot the
    deliberately provocative statements made by MJV at every turn.

    And thanks to you, the thread bumps to the top of the list and grows
    longer as he strings you along to the inevitable "yawn" or "did you
    say something" capitulation when he gets tired of stringing you along.

    Steve - for the love of all that's holy - please don't bother any
    more. Even the dumbest readers of Vandedrivel(tm) can spot how
    egotistic it all is. And you're just feeding it.

    E.P.


    Yeah - you are quite correct. After all, there are more intellectually
    stimulating activities... Playing chess with my cat comes to mind...
    He's been trounced so many times by so many people with so much information
    to counter his contrived opinions usenet is probably causing global warming.
    Besides, I do have a Pinarello in pieces... Two websites to build... other
    bikes to ride and guitars to play.
    MV has been relegated to the status of "middleman" in an "information for
    wholesale from the source" environment. He knows it. You know it. I know it.
    And he knows we know it.
    My cat is trying to corner my bishop with a knight.... Out!

  7. S Curtiss said:

    My cat is trying to corner my bishop with a knight.... Out!

    K vs. B can give a very interesting middle game.

    PH

  8. Olebiker said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    But I don't see any reason to compromise on telling the truth! Yes, we
    are animals somewhat like other animals, but we are not a natural part
    of any ecosystem. We are a species that is native to part of Africa,
    and everywhere else a very late newcomer, i.e. an exotic species. Like
    all exotic species, we have arguably no right to access, much less
    exploit, local ecosystems, especially when those activities threaten
    native species (except that, when it's convenient, we claim that
    "might makes right"😉.

    How would you define what is a "native" species in North America? Are
    you saying that only species that emerged from the proverbial
    primordial ooze in North America have any right to exist here?

    Can't you read? http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.

    Quoted message said:

    [censored] 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.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  9. Olebiker said:
    Mike Vandeman said:


    Seehttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. I define it as one that has
    been around a million years. But no matter how you define it, humans
    in North America are an invasive, exotic species.

    So, why should we accept your definition?

    Pick a better length of time. And JUSTIFY it.

    Quoted message said:

    Animals move from one environment to another in search of more food
    and/or better shelter. Wild animals naturally migrate and are not
    considered invasive or exotic.

    Yes, they are. You don't become a native the day you arrive. DUH!

    Why would you consider the Paleo-

    Quoted message said:

    Indians who crossed the Bering Strait around 40,000 years ago any
    different than other animals?

    They got here much earlier.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  10. Bob Berger said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

    Quoted message said:


    Bob Berger said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...
    >
    >On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >
    >>On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>> >>"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
    >>> >>of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
    >>> >>relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.
    >>>
    >>> >That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
    >>> >agree with him. Man's
    >>> >superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
    >>> >but do not take him out of the natural equation.
    >>>
    >>> So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
    >>> opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.
    >>
    >>I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
    >>observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
    >>developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
    >>increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
    >>as some extranatural being.
    >
    >I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
    >IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
    >rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
    >Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.
    >
    >>> >Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
    >>> >naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
    >>> >exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.
    >>>
    >>> You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
    >>> the day you arrive! DUH!
    >>
    >>I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
    >>your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
    >>nothing magic in being a native species.
    >
    >I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
    >scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
    >So you are just WRONG.
    >
    >>> Early man expanded his
    >>>
    >>> >range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
    >>> >shelter - natural drives.
    >>>
    >>> >For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
    >>> >man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
    >>> >accept that definition, but scientists do.
    >>>
    >>> It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
    >>> to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
    >>> exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).
    >>
    >>The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
    >>organism got here.
    >
    >As well as how long it has been there.

    One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
    least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
    many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

    What's wrong with that?

    By being redefined so broadly (1,000,000 years in the new area before a species
    is considered not an exotic) the term loses its ability to communicate to the
    reader the condition it is customarily intended to describe. My suggestion would
    have been for you to create a new term rather than redefine an existing one.

    Why? My definition is reasonable and fills a void.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
    right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

    "RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently
    extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It
    should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative).

    But the gray wolf (canis lupus), which is native to Eurasia, didn't enter North
    America until 300,000 or less years ago. It is thus, by your definition of the
    term (must be present in the new area for 1,000,000+ years), an exotic.

    You catch on quick.

    Quoted message said:

    Why in this case should the gray wolf be considered native (not an exotic) to
    the Yellowstone region?

    It's a matter of degree. They may want to restore an extirpated
    species, in which case they have little choice but an exotic.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  11. On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:41:03 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:56:10 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    >>On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>> >>"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the
    >>> >>rest
    >>> >>of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
    >>> >>relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.
    >>>
    >>> >That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
    >>> >agree with him. Man's
    >>> >superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other
    >>> >animals,
    >>> >but do not take him out of the natural equation.
    >>>
    >>> So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
    >>> opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.
    >>
    >>I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
    >>observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
    >>developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
    >>increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
    >>as some extranatural being.
    >
    > I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
    > IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
    > rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
    > Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.
    Humans are also along the top of the food chain, have "migrated" just as
    many other animals have done and carry no more guilt for doing so than
    does
    any other animal.

    Only those who WALKED here have even a tiny right to be here. That
    leaves out 99.44% of the population, including you.


    And what of the "wildlife" that currently exists here that did not "walk"
    here in their own lifetime? Are they to be vilified also or do they get a
    pass simply because they do not have the capacity to understand fictitious
    boundaries?

    Quoted message said:


    Get over it.

    Quoted message said:

    Your opinion has no weight as you are a proven liar.

    Hasn't happened yet!


    Yes - it has. Numerous times and very recently:
    "Jan 2007:
    In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
    response:
    January '07, for instance -
    "Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area when
    the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.

    AT WORST, that is a misunderstanding, not a lie.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  12. On Mon, 5 Mar 2007 19:19:04 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:


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

    Quoted message said:

    On Sun, 4 Mar 2007 15:33:08 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    >>>>>
    >>>>> Quote something I said that's not factual. This should be good!
    >>>>
    >>>>Just a few from a quick search:
    >>>>
    >>>>May 2002:
    >>>>"Not only is it similar, it IS murder! Thousands of small animals are
    >>>>killed
    >>>>by mountain bikers every week. They travel too fast to avoid crushing
    >>>>small
    >>>>animals that are in the trail (or under the surface)."
    >>>
    >>> "Murder - to slaughter wantonly; to slay; to put an end to; to
    >>> torment". QED
    >>>
    >>> It's clear that my statement was 100% fact. The fact that you question
    >>> it only shows that you and all mountain bikers are unreliable sources
    >>> of information -- in other words, LIARS. Henceforth I will treat
    >>> everything else you say as equally unreliable and worthless. Too bad
    >>> you lost your one and only chance to prove yourself.
    >>Wrong - There is no INTENT to kill therefore "murder" is not the correct
    >>term.
    >
    > According to Webster, you are WRONG. Just like everything else you
    > say! ... Too bad you blew your ONE AND ONLY opportunity to prove me
    > wrong. c'est la vie.
    I don't have to prove you wrong. You do that all by yourself. I (and
    others)
    only point to the truth in the examples of your lies you so willingly
    provide either by being blind by your own bias against this particular
    activity or by being a complete imbecile. Since actual research,
    references
    and evidence posted over the years shows your opinions are clearly
    mistaken
    and you continue on the same course, the only possible conclusion is the
    latter.

    According to Webster, "murder" is the deliberate killing of one human by
    another.

    That's not the only definition, as I quoted for you.

    Goodbye, Sour Grapes.

    Of course it is not the "only" definition as is referenced below... Can't
    you read? It is written in English and everything: "popular speech and
    slang"...
    As for the rest of the statements below which you cowardly ignore.... I
    suppose it is easier for you to believe your own nonsense of false
    statements, lies and misleading characterizations rather than even ATTEMPT
    to show some integrity. Your NON-FACTS are documented time and time again.
    The FACT that you know of your lies is OBVIOUS by your avoidance of the
    truth when it is placed right in front of you.

    Quoted message said:


    Secondary definitions apply to popular speech and slang.

    Quoted message said:

    Beyond that, you still have NOT qualified the statement concerning
    "thousands of small animals every week" or quantified the statement in
    regards to the depth of small creatures killed by hikers in the same time
    frame or nullified your "murder" of small creatures with every step you
    take.
    Until you establish the FACTS of your statement in total with relevant and
    verifiable sources (IE: NOT your opinions or assumptions), it is a
    NON-FACT
    statement.

    And - You STILL ignore the obvious LIES and NON-FACTS of the statements
    documented from you concerning the remainder of the post as is stated
    below.
    By ignoring it you only CONFIRM the LIES as posted by YOU.
    >
    Unless you intend to also state that every time you walk you also
    "murder" small creatures and that your "murder" is somehow less important
    than that which you attribute to cyclists. Plus, you still have NOT
    provided
    ANY reference that supports your CLAIM that there are "thousands of small
    animals" killed by mountain bikers or that anything "killed" is
    statistically higher in numbers than those resulting from hikers'
    activities.
    You are applying your OPINIONS and ASSUMPTIONS but supplying NO evidence
    to
    support the numbers or the terminology. Therefore, it is NOT FACT.
    >>
    You also completely disregarded the rest of post concerning NON-FACT
    (lies)
    statements on your part:
    >>
    Sept 2006:
    "It was virgin rainforest in BC, destroyed by mountain bikers purely for
    cheap thrills."
    The piece YOU posted referenced the area as a cul-de-sac and neighborhood.
    The area had already been developed for homes and construction yet you
    state
    "mountain bikers" destroyed it.
    >>
    Jan 2007:
    In response to an earlier claim of "no lies" on your part, there was this
    response:
    >>
    "Just this past week you claimed a skier was killed in an illegal area
    when
    the piece YOU posted showed it was an expert backcountry area.
    Just this past week you claimed environmentalists do not drive.
    Recently you claimed a thief and murderer was a "mountain biker" after he
    stole a bicycle to get away.
    In response to a news article citing real statisitics "ecoterrorism
    remains
    one of the country's most active terrorist movements." You claim "Except
    for
    mountain bikers, who ride illegally every day." completely ignoring the
    legal status recognized by the NPS, NFS, and local land managers.
    Not long ago you claimed "mountain bikers have the most serious injuries"
    yet the actual numbers and news research showed the highest number of
    serious injuries nationwide happen inside the home. *You promptly
    abandoned
    the thread, as usual, when faced with real information.
    And, above, you claim I do not care simply because I challenge your
    unsubstantiated statements concerning the cause of animal deaths. You have
    no comprehension of my level of concern beyond your attempt to get away
    from
    a direct question"

    These represent statements made by you and your repeated attempts to
    disregard or discard them only shows the continued depth of your
    dishonesty
    and lack of integrity in EVERY statement and claim you make.

    >>
    >>You are PATHETIC as a researcher and a complete JOKE as a reference for
    >>anything "factual". You have NO integrity in your statements and that is
    >>proven by the tactics of your replies.
    >>
    > ===


    Goodbye, idiot.
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  13. Mike Vandeman said:
    Quoted message said:

    How would you define what is a "native" species in North America? Are
    you saying that only species that emerged from the proverbial
    primordial ooze in North America have any right to exist here?

    Can't you read?http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4.

    Catch up, Mike. We covered that a week ago.

  14. Olebiker said:


    Catch up, Mike. We covered that a week ago.

    Don'cha'mean several years ago? With identical results? That is to
    say, no results at all?
    Is there something in Pacific air that leads to imbecility? (Seems to
    hold for most of L.A.County, at leat.)

    I still maintain you are attempting rational discourse with an
    irrational being. Every week orso I stroll by & it's the same old same
    old same. . . . . .

    PH

  15. Mike Vandeman said:

    AT WORST, that is a misunderstanding, not a lie.

    Your quoting skills are atrocious, Mike. You could clarify your replies
    by using better technique. Here are some links for you to check out:

    http://vancouver-webpages.com/nnq/nquote.html

    http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html

    http://www.xs4all.nl/~hanb/documents/quotingguide.html

    ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc1855.txt

    -Beej

  16. In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

    Quoted message said:


    Bob Berger said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

    Quoted message said:


    On 4 Mar 2007 08:55:37 -0800, Bob Berger <[email hidden]> wrote:

    >In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...
    >>
    >>On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>
    >>>On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman <[email hidden]> wrote:
    >>>> >>"... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest
    >>>> >>of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural'
    >>>> >>relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41.
    >>>>
    >>>> >That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't
    >>>> >agree with him. Man's
    >>>> >superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals,
    >>>> >but do not take him out of the natural equation.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your
    >>>> opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE.
    >>>
    >>>I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my
    >>>observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man
    >>>developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse,
    >>>increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man
    >>>as some extranatural being.
    >>
    >>I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat
    >>IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not
    >>rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it.
    >>Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever.
    >>
    >>>> >Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that
    >>>> >naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously
    >>>> >exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic.
    >>>>
    >>>> You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species
    >>>> the day you arrive! DUH!
    >>>
    >>>I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept
    >>>your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is
    >>>nothing magic in being a native species.
    >>
    >>I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several
    >>scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition.
    >>So you are just WRONG.
    >>
    >>>> Early man expanded his
    >>>>
    >>>> >range into North America, for example, in search of better food and
    >>>> >shelter - natural drives.
    >>>>
    >>>> >For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of
    >>>> >man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't
    >>>> >accept that definition, but scientists do.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant
    >>>> to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they
    >>>> exclude humans (without explicitly saying so).
    >>>
    >>>The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an
    >>>organism got here.
    >>
    >>As well as how long it has been there.
    >
    >One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at
    >least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very
    >many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf.

    What's wrong with that?

    By being redefined so broadly (1,000,000 years in the new area before a species
    is considered not an exotic) the term loses its ability to communicate to the
    reader the condition it is customarily intended to describe. My suggestion would
    have been for you to create a new term rather than redefine an existing one.

    Why?

    Because it causes confusion. Others don't know that you're using a personal
    definition, and thus are likely to missintrpret the implications what you're
    saying.

    Quoted message said:

    My definition is reasonable and fills a void.

    Is it reasonable? I'm not sure. What is the biological or environmental
    justification for the 1,000,000 year value? Why is that better than, say,
    100,000 years or 5,000,000 years?

    Also, it appears that your 1,000,000 year value operates as a binary switch;
    less than that value: exotic, that value or more: not exotic. If so, is that
    reasonable?

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the
    >right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region?

    "RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently
    extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It
    should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative).

    But the gray wolf (canis lupus), which is native to Eurasia, didn't enter North
    America until 300,000 or less years ago. It is thus, by your definition of the
    term (must be present in the new area for 1,000,000+ years), an exotic.

    You catch on quick.

    Quoted message said:

    Why in this case should the gray wolf be considered native (not an exotic) to
    the Yellowstone region?

    It's a matter of degree. They may want to restore an extirpated
    species, in which case they have little choice but an exotic.

    This isn't a theoretical example. It happened. The gray wolf (canis lupus) was
    an exotic species (by your definition) in the Yellowstone region. Humans
    eradicated it. The NPS later reintroduced the exact same exotic species, canis
    lupus. Why is that an acceptable action under your definition?

    I suggest that a binary switch "clock time in area" test isn't a good metric by
    which to measure the exoticness of a species.

    Bob

    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.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond
    of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

  17. Bob Berger said:

    In article <[email hidden]>, Mike Vandeman says...

    I suggest that a binary switch "clock time in area" test isn't a good metric by
    which to measure the exoticness of a species.

    Or, more likely, the assertion of such a thing is merely a means by
    which MJV gets people to reply to his trolls.

    Like every other outrageous statement he makes.

    E.P.

  18. Beej Jorgensen said:
    Mike Vandeman said:

    AT WORST, that is a misunderstanding, not a lie.

    Your quoting skills are atrocious, Mike.

    Like every other portion of MJV's footprint across usenet. All part
    of a whole...

    E.P.

  19. Mike Vandeman said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >Would you have us ship back to Asia any animals that came across the
    >Bering Strait or ship back to South America any animal that expanded
    >its range north into North America? The fact that they did not evolve
    >here does not give them any less right to exist here.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Yes it does. Exotic species have less rights than natives. It has to
    be that way. Everyonbe who knows anything about biology knows that.

    I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the
    point very well:

    "The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals,
    whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right
    is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die",
    and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or
    peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version,
    Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and
    it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species
    bad."

  20. http://www.best-horse-photos.com/Wild-Horses.html

    Wild-Horses:
    Photos, Pictures, and History

    best horse photos

    Wild-Horses

    ..

    *Having lived for many years with Wild-Horses in Southern France,
    where much of my family still resides, I naturally grew to love not
    only Horses, but also Horses of the Camargue. It is the images in my
    mind of having seen these incredible Horses in their natural habitat
    that compelled me to create, for YOU, this page about Wild Horses. /
    Steve *

    ..

    Horse Lovers: Get ready for a real treat! Wild-Horses will continue to
    grow as we find more and more beautiful photos. If you have pictures
    of this caliber (or better!) by all means send them in. If they make
    the cut, we would be honored to post them on our site.

    ..

    Horses

    *Wild free-roaming horses and burros belong to no one individual. They
    belong to all American people. The spirit which has kept them alive
    and free against almost insurmountable odds typifies the national
    spirit which led to the growth of our Nation. They are living symbols
    of the rugged independence and tireless energy of our Pioneer
    heritage. *

    *(U.S. Senate Report No. 242, 92nd Congress, 1971) *

    ..

    Wild-Horses

    ..

    *

    Wild-Horses: Exposing the Myths

    *

    ..

    In 1971, Congress recognized that wild horses and burros (are living
    symbols of the Historic and pioneer spirit of the West) by enacting
    the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. This law seeks to protect
    from capture, branding, harassment, or death Wild horses and burros
    found on public lands in the United States. Yet the law has never been
    fully implemented by the Department of the Interior, the agency of the
    Federal government charged with its administration. Below are common
    misconceptions -- and the real facts -- about wild-horses.

    *MYTH: Wild-horses and burros are exotic, non-native species
    rightfully categorized as "feral" domestic animals. *

    *False. *The Wild-Horses and Burros Act recognize the wild-horse as an
    "integral component of the natural system." Paleontological evidence
    shows that wild-horses and burros evolved on the North American
    continent over the course of some 60,000,000 years. How they
    disappeared 8,000 to 10,000 years ago, if in fact they actually ever
    became extinct here, is a mystery. It is suspected that the horses
    were hunted to near extinction by humans who had crossed the ice
    bridge into North America. When Cortez landed in Mexico in 1519, he
    brought horses from Spain. Others followed. From these reintroduced
    animals came the great numbers of wild-horses this eventually changed
    the culture of the Plains Indians.

    The Spanish horses soon adapted to the same ecological niche their
    native relatives had once inhabited here. Every trait and
    characteristic that describes a native wildlife species fits the
    American wild-horse and desert burro. Long before the early settlers
    and homesteaders pioneered the West, they were here as a reintroduced,
    fully adapted species. When the U.S. government acquired land through
    the Louisiana Purchase and from Mexico, also acquired were the
    wild-horses. As many as 3 million wild horses existed on public domain
    lands. Their home territory stretched from the Carizzo Plains and
    Santa Lucia Mountains of California, east to Missouri, and north to
    North Dakota and into Canada.

    ..

    Horse pictures

    ..

    *MYTH: Wild-Horses and burros don't really need legal protection. The
    law was passed in response to the lobbying of a few "horse lovers" and
    school children. *

    *False. *Prior to the passage of the wild horse law, free lance
    cowboys ("mustangers"😉 were selling wild-horses, which are government
    property, without a license to dog food manufacturers. Using trucks
    and helicopters to round up the animals, the cowboys often left
    injured horses to die slowly in the desert. This outraged Velma
    Johnston, a resident of Reno, Nevada, whose actions on the horses'
    behalf gave her the nickname "Wild Horse Annie." As a result of the
    national publicity generated by Mrs. Johnston and others, a law was
    passed in 1959 to prohibit the use of aircraft or motor vehicles to
    hunt certain wild horses and burros on federally owned land. This law
    also made it illegal to "pollute any watering hole on any of the
    public land or ranges for the purpose of trapping, killing, wounding,
    or maiming any of such animals."

    However, the 1959 law did not prevent commercial interests from
    rounding up horses and burros and selling them for profit. Further
    protection for wild horses and burros was provided by the 1971 Wild
    Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, the result of overwhelming
    nationwide public support. Both chambers of Congress passed the Act
    unanimously -- not one Senator or Representative voted against it.
    Congress chose to protect wild-horses and burros as a heritage
    species.

    ..

    Horse Photos

    ..

    *MYTH: There is an overpopulation of wild-horses on public lands. *

    *. *

    *. *

    *False. *There is no overpopulation of wild-horses and burros. The
    condition of the land, not the number of animals, determines whether
    or not a wild-horse overpopulation exists in a particular area. The
    wild horse law says that in a given area, a certain amount of
    vegetation may be eaten as forage. Only when that amount is exceeded
    are there too many animals. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has
    changed the definition of overpopulation as given in the wild horse
    law. The BLM has declared that overpopulation is any amount above its
    desired management number of 21,000 animals. The BLM's 1997 report to
    Congress claimed an estimated 43,000 wild-horses and burros on
    rangelands, a figure based on maximum reproductive rates to ensure
    funding from Congress to continue to remove horses and burros from
    public lands. The Animal Protection Institute and others contend that
    less than 20,000 animals actually remain on the land.

    ..

    On the other side of the World, Laura Sailors has been photographing
    the majestic Wild-Horses that roam free in California. Soon to be
    exhibiting part of her collection at a local gallery, Laura has
    graciously allowed us to show case some of her work here at
    best-horse-photos.com. A few of her newer pictures may also show up in
    next months NEWSLETTER (Hint, Hint).

    If you would like to contact Laura, please do so by way of:
    [email hidden]

    ..

    Horse herds

    ..

    *MYTH: The BLM removes wild-horses and burros to keep the number of
    animals at a level the range can support. *

    *False. *Wild horse and burro populations are being severely reduced,
    but not to protect the range. Ranchers demand that wild-horses be
    removed to protect forage historically allocated for livestock use.
    The law requires that the BLM measure the impact of the animal
    population on the habitat to determine if there are too many animals
    in a given area. But, according to a 1990 investigation by the General
    Accounting Office (GAO), BLM decisions on how many horses to remove
    from public lands have not been based on any evidence that wild horse
    populations exceed what the range can support. Moreover, the GAO found
    that wild horse removals often have not been accompanied by reductions
    in livestock grazing. In some cases, the BLM has increased authorized
    livestock grazing levels after removing wild-horses. As a result,
    range conditions have not improved. The law authorizes the BLM to
    remove wild-horses and burros "when they pose a threat to themselves,
    their habitat, or other rangeland values." However, only the number
    needed to restore the natural ecological balance between wild-horses,
    other wildlife, and their habitat may be removed. Thus, the law
    prohibits the BLM from maintaining a predetermined number of animals.
    This interpretation of the law has been confirmed by a federal court
    decision and rulings of the Interior Board of Land Appeals, as well as
    the GAO findings.

    ..

    Horse Stallions

    ..

    *MYTH: Wild-Horses compete with cows for forage. *

    *False. *Wild-Horses do not compete with cattle for the same available
    forage. Cows graze within a mile of water, while wild-horses are
    highly mobile, grazing from five to ten miles from water, at higher
    elevations, on steeper slopes, and in more rugged terrain. A
    congressionally mandated study by the National Academy of Science
    found that wild horses and burros are not responsible for overgrazing
    on public lands. The study also revealed that, in one year, livestock
    consumed 70% of grazing resources on public lands, while wild-horses
    and burros consumed less than 5%. Cattle outnumber wild-horses on
    public lands by approximately 1,000 to 1.

    ..

    Horses colt

    ..

    *MYTH: Where BLM manages wild-horses and burros is a land-use decision
    to be determined at the local level. *

    *False. *The sole and exclusive authority for where wild horses are to
    be managed is stated in the wild horse law. It says that the BLM must
    manage and protect wild-horses and burros where they existed in 1971,
    at the time the law passed. The only land-use decision authorized by
    the wild horse law is whether to designate an area where wild-horses
    and burros are known to have existed in 1971 as exclusive habitat for
    the animals, or as multiple-use land. Lands designated as multiple-use
    are to be managed "principally but not exclusively" for wild horses
    and burros. The BLM may not expand the range for wild-horses and
    burros or open up new areas for their use. Despite the requirements
    and directives of the law, BLM officials insist that where they manage
    wild horses and how many are to be managed are decisions to be made as
    a part of local land-use deliberations. In 1984, there were 303
    identified wild horse and burro use areas on 47 million acres of land.
    By 1997, only 186 of those areas contained wild horses or burros.
    Through land-use planning decisions, the BLM has emptied 117 herd use
    areas and reduced wild horse habitat area to less than 35 million
    acres. The BLM plans to empty 60 more wild horse areas despite the law
    prohibiting it.

    ..

    Horse Stallion

    ..

    *MYTH: The BLM may at its discretion dispose of animals considered to
    be excess. *

    *False. *The law allows for three methods of lowering the number of
    animals in a particular area after the determination is made that an
    overpopulation exists and a reduction is needed. Excess horses may: ?
    be relocated to other areas of public land, ? be destroyed in a humane
    manner, or ? be removed from the range and placed in the care of
    qualified individuals or organizations. A BLM program allows
    "qualified individuals or organizations" to adopt, for a nominal fee,
    animals removed from the range. This adoption program has been used by
    the BLM to remove large numbers of horses and burros from public land,
    a practiced encouraged by the ranching industry, which views all
    wildlife as competing with livestock.

    Between 1980 and 1990, the BLM rounded up, removed, and disposed of
    more than 80,000 wild-horses, about 60,000 of whom were processed
    through the Adopt-A- Horse program. The BLM does not have the
    authority to sell wild-horses. Providing the BLM with sale authority
    would allow the animals to be sold for commercial purposes, including
    slaughter. In the 1980s, several attempts were made to amend the law
    to include BLM sale authority, and each time the public protested.
    When these bids to gain sale authority failed, the BLM instituted a
    special fee-waived, mass adoption program to serve as a disposal
    system for handling large numbers of horses removed from the range. A
    federal court ruling eventually ended the mass adoption program,
    leaving more than 3,000 horses in the system in need of homes. The BLM
    continues to allocate about half of its wild horse program budget to
    rounding up horses for adoption even though many animals are currently
    in the system awaiting adoption.

    ..

    fillies colts foals

    ..

    *MYTH: A horse may be sold for slaughter if the adopter obtains an
    official title. *

    *False. *Although the BLM maintains that a horse may be sold for
    slaughter if the horse is first adopted and the adopter obtains an
    official title, this was not the intent of Congress when it passed the
    wild horse protection law. The law says that, after one year, an
    adopted wild horse or burro loses legal protections provided the
    animal is not sold or transferred for compensation or commercial
    purposes. In the late 1980s, API and The Fund for Animals challenged
    the BLM's fee-waived, mass adoption program on the grounds that the
    BLM knew in advance that the adopters intended to sell or commercially
    exploit the horses, and thus were not qualified adopters. The Court
    found in API's favor and instructed the BLM not to transfer title when
    the adopter planned to use the animal for commercial purposes. This
    decision was upheld on appeal. Nonetheless, investigations reveal that
    BLM agents have, in fact, placed horses with people with the knowledge
    that the horses would be sold for slaughter. In 1997, API and The Fund
    for Animals returned to court to request that the 1987 injunction be
    enforced and strengthened to protect wild horses from going to
    slaughter. As a result of the lawsuit, the BLM agreed to reform its
    requirements for adopting wild-horses to prevent these rampant abuses.
    In the settlement, the BLM agreed to reword its Private Maintenance
    and Care Agreement so that anyone who adopts a wild horse or burro for
    slaughter or commercial purposes may be prosecuted. The agency also
    promised it would prohibit using the powers of attorney in the
    adoption process, and that U.S. Department of Agriculture inspectors
    will notify BLM when horses with the BLM freeze-brand arrive at a
    slaughterhouse. API is prepared to take whatever actions are necessary
    to see that the practice of selling wild-horses for slaughter ends and
    that the original intent and language of the law are followed.

    ..

    Horse Foals

    ..

    *How to Adopt a Wild Horse or Burro*

    The decision to adopt a wild horse or burro should not be made
    lightly. Providing a home for a wild animal presents unique
    challenges. You must submit an adoption application and sign a Private
    Care and Maintenance Agreement at the time the horse is turned over to
    you. If you wish to obtain title to the horse at the end of one year
    of successfully caring for it, you may submit an application for
    title.

    The BLM adoption office can tell you the date of the next adoption
    event in your area. Adopted are required to provide 12x12 feet of
    adequate shelter, a minimum of 20x20 feet of corral space, and study
    fencing 6 feet high for horses and 5-1/2 feet high for burros.

    To transport the animals from the adoption, adopters must have a
    solidly constructed horse trailer with a covered top and side-swing
    back gates (drop ramps are not permitted), along with halters and lead
    ropes. BLM crews will sort, halter, and load the animals onto the
    adopters' trailers. Each animal will have been checked by a
    veterinarian, and received the appropriate vaccinations. A person
    experienced with horses should be available to assist in unloading the
    animal when you return home. The usual adoption fee is $125 for a
    horse or burro. In addition to the fee, those planning to adopt a
    horse or burro must be prepared to cover ongoing costs for feed,
    veterinary care, and farrier services. Adopters must be over the age
    of 18, and a maximum of four horses or burros can be adopted in any
    one year. In selecting a horse, be sure to observe the behavior of
    individual horses at the adoption site. The hierarchy in the band out
    on the range dictates submissive or assertive temperaments. Those
    mares who have been lead mares, and stallions who have been dominant
    stallions, will be more aggressive than the subdominant mares and
    stallions. Watch for dominant and submissive behavior as the animals
    jockey for position in the pen. The more dominant animals will be more
    difficult to gentle. Some animals may have completed a "gentling"
    program; others will be recently removed from the range. Be sure to
    check with adoption officials.

    This web site was so easy to build Wild-Horses couldn't have stopped
    me. Click here to learn
    <http://buildit.sitesell.com/american_sales.html>

    ..

    Best-Horse-Photos
    FREE NEWSLETTER

    *Sign up to get our latest photos, pictures, and Information even
    before they're posted here. Send us YOUR pictures, and show them off
    to thousands of other subscribers around the world. Contact
    information and links on how to build: YOUR BEST SITE.*

    ** *Enter Your E-mail Address*
    *Enter Your First Name (optional)*
    *Then*

    Don't worry -- your e-mail address is totally secure.
    I promise to use it *only* to send you Best-Horse-Photos.

    *Sign up now!!! As a bonus you will have access to all the FREE back
    issues of Best Horse Photos. You will also find in these Newsletters
    many photos, pictures, and links not seen here. *

    ..

    Horses_herds.jpg

    ..

    Horse Posters

    *Click THE WILD-HORSES Below *

    To go to our Horse Posters page, where you will be able to view even
    more beautiful photos of Wild-Horses. Also pictures and art works of
    Arabian, Paint, Morgan, Draft, and Quarter Horses; Colts, Fillies, and
    Foals.

    ..

    Poster_Wild_Horses.jpg
    <http://www.best-horse-photos.com/Horse-Posters.html>

    ..

    ..

    2006 CALENDARS ARE HERE !!!

    *Click THE WILD-HORSES Below *

    Go To go our Wild-Horse Calendars page, where you will be able to view
    the best examples of this and next years Horse-Calendars.

    ..

    Calendar_Wild_Horses.jpg
    <http://www.best-horse-photos.com/Horse-Calendars.html>

    *TOP of PAGE / Wild-Horses*
    <http://www.best-horse-photos.com/Wild-Horses.html>

    *Wild-Horses Photos To Home Page(Horses)*
    <http://www.best-horse-photos.com/>

    ..

    *Important Wild-Horses LINKS*

    *BLM National Wild Horse and Burro Home Page *
    <http://www.wildhorseandburro.blm.gov/>
    ===
    I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
    humans ("pure habitat"😉. Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
    years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

    Please don't put a cell phone next to any part of your body that you are fond of!

    http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.