Desecration of the Desert
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
."JD" <d...@usafcct.com> wrote in message
.news:ebf270c9.02041...@posting.google.com...
.> "FlyingCoyote" <flying...@boarsgut.com> wrote in message
.news:<XAXs8.2792$c41.126...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>...
.> > I hate crap like this. I'm constantly mixed between disbelief that
.people
.> > can be so inconsiderate and destructive; and frustrated in knowing that
.this
.> > is how far too many people are.
.> >
.> > I love to backpack as much as I do mountain biking and I always, always,
.> > always do my best to preserve and protect the natural surroundings.
.> >
.> > So many have no concept (or care) of the damage they do, how they affect
.> > their natural surroundings and other people.
.>
.> It's a sad reality. Unless people on mountain bikes shape up, we'll
.> lose access just as the motorized people are. Rednecks have wallets
.> and can buy bikes, just as easily as they do their petrotoys.
.
.You can't blame closures entirely on ill-behaved segments
.of the riding population (doesn't matter whether we're talking
.about motorized or pedal powered, I do both and the problems
.are similar). There are eco-fascists out there (like MV) who want to
.shut us ALL out of ALL public land, whether we behave responsibly
.or not, period.
1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
areas, just like bulldozer racing.
2. Nobody is trying to ban mountain bikers from any park in the world.
We only want to ban BIKES. DUH!!!! If you are inplying that you can't
go anywhere wthout your bike, why don't you SAY it????
And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
.far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
.
.The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
.more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
.increasing the likelihood of overuse damage.
What is "overuse"? If lots of mountain bikers are damaging, then so is
ONE. ONE mountain biker just takes a bit longer to do as much damage
as many. Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up wildlife and wildlife
habitat. DU!!!
Then they
.point to this damage and say "see, look at what they
.do, we need to close that area too!!". It's a vicious circle
.that can only be stopped if we band together with other
.user groups and fight them every step of the way.
.
.Educating fellow riders (of all types) to behave responsibly
.is important, but it won't make a bit of difference if we don't
.realize that our right to ride is threatened by the eco-extremists
.and start to act AND VOTE accordingly. Be extremely
.careful when you vote for "pro-environmental" politicians
.or legislation that you aren't voting away your right to ride,
.because quite often that is the end result, unfortunately.
.
.--
.Matt
.
.
.
.
===
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.)
Mike Vandeman
.or not, period. And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
.far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
.
.The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
.more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
.increasing the likelihood of overuse damage. Then they
.point to this damage and say "see, look at what they
.do, we need to close that area too!!". It's a vicious circle
.that can only be stopped if we band together with other
.user groups and fight them every step of the way.
.
.Educating fellow riders (of all types) to behave responsibly
.is important, but it won't make a bit of difference if we don't
.realize that our right to ride is threatened by the eco-extremists
.and start to act AND VOTE accordingly. Be extremely
.careful when you vote for "pro-environmental" politicians
.or legislation that you aren't voting away your right to ride,
There IS no "right to ride"! See
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm for the determination by a
federal court that there is no right to mountain bike: it can be
banned any time a land manager feels like doing itand gives a
reasonable rationalization.
pmhi...@mfx.net
> 1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
> areas, just like bulldozer racing.
> 2. Nobody is trying to ban mountain bikers from any park in the world.
> We only want to ban BIKES. DUH!!!! If you are inplying that you can't
> go anywhere wthout your bike, why don't you SAY it????
>
> And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
> .far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
> .
> .The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
> .more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
> .increasing the likelihood of overuse damage.
>
> What is "overuse"? If lots of mountain bikers are damaging, then so is
> ONE. ONE mountain biker just takes a bit longer to do as much damage
> as many. Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up wildlife and wildlife
> habitat. DU!!!
>
Just remember, Mike: all generalities are false.
Yours in the north Maine woods,
Pete Hilton aka The Ent
--
Second-ratedness, unfailing law of:
Never be the first to try anything.
anon.
Spider
> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:53:25 -0700, "Matt" <ma...@telestream.net>
> wrote:
>
> .You can't blame closures entirely on ill-behaved segments
> .of the riding population (doesn't matter whether we're talking
> .about motorized or pedal powered, I do both and the problems
> .are similar). There are eco-fascists out there (like MV) who want to
> .shut us ALL out of ALL public land, whether we behave responsibly
> .or not, period.
>
> 1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
> areas, just like bulldozer racing.
JUST LIKE bulldozer racing? Wow, that's quite a claim!
> 2. Nobody is trying to ban mountain bikers from any park in the world.
> We only want to ban BIKES. DUH!!!! If you are inplying that you can't
> go anywhere wthout your bike, why don't you SAY it????
Hey, Mike - I can't MOUNTAIN BIKE anywhere without my bike. When I am
on my bike, I'm a mountain biker. Without it, I'm a hiker. Duh.
> And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
> .far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
> .
> .The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
> .more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
> .increasing the likelihood of overuse damage.
>
> What is "overuse"? If lots of mountain bikers are damaging, then so is
> ONE.
Nice lack of logic. If an ecosystem can support three predators, but
not 50, would you say two are too many?
> ONE mountain biker just takes a bit longer to do as much damage
> as many.
Or maybe never. Depends on how many, hmmm? Or how much real damage
is done...
> Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up wildlife and wildlife
> habitat. DU!!!
Designed to rip up wildlife? You mean that there is a tire specially
made for bunny killing, and I don't have it??? Damn, who makes that
tire? :)
You're so funny, Mike. C'mon, JD - you have to admit this is one of
the worst posts Mike's ever made... LOL!
Spider
Mike Vandeman
.mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote in message news:<3cb6df89...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
.> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:53:25 -0700, "Matt" <ma...@telestream.net>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .You can't blame closures entirely on ill-behaved segments
.> .of the riding population (doesn't matter whether we're talking
.> .about motorized or pedal powered, I do both and the problems
.> .are similar). There are eco-fascists out there (like MV) who want to
.> .shut us ALL out of ALL public land, whether we behave responsibly
.> .or not, period.
.>
.> 1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
.> areas, just like bulldozer racing.
.
.JUST LIKE bulldozer racing? Wow, that's quite a claim!
Look up "analogy" in your Junior Learner's Dictionary.
.> 2. Nobody is trying to ban mountain bikers from any park in the world.
.> We only want to ban BIKES. DUH!!!! If you are inplying that you can't
.> go anywhere wthout your bike, why don't you SAY it????
.
.Hey, Mike - I can't MOUNTAIN BIKE anywhere without my bike. When I am
.on my bike, I'm a mountain biker. Without it, I'm a hiker. Duh.
No, you aren't. Without your bike, you are a mountain biker minus his
bike. Again, look up "-er" in your Kiddie Dictionary.
.> And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
.> .far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
.> .
.> .The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
.> .more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
.> .increasing the likelihood of overuse damage.
.>
.> What is "overuse"? If lots of mountain bikers are damaging, then so is
.> ONE.
.
.Nice lack of logic. If an ecosystem can support three predators, but
.not 50, would you say two are too many?
No ecosystem can support even ONE mountain biker. Mountain bikes
DESTROY them.
.> ONE mountain biker just takes a bit longer to do as much damage
.> as many.
.
.Or maybe never. Depends on how many, hmmm? Or how much real damage
.is done...
You wouldn't know damage if it hit you in the head.
.> Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up wildlife and wildlife
.> habitat. DU!!!
.
.Designed to rip up wildlife? You mean that there is a tire specially
.made for bunny killing, and I don't have it??? Damn, who makes that
.tire? :)
They ALL do that.
pmhi...@mfx.net
ivory tower. It would seem the only world Mike would find acceptable would have no people in it at all.
Lneedham
wrote:
>On 12 Apr 2002 19:32:23 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
>
>.mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote in message news:<3cb6df89...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
>.> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:53:25 -0700, "Matt" <ma...@telestream.net>
>.> wrote:
>.>
>.> .You can't blame closures entirely on ill-behaved segments
>.> .of the riding population (doesn't matter whether we're talking
>.> .about motorized or pedal powered, I do both and the problems
>.> .are similar). There are eco-fascists out there (like MV) who want to
>.> .shut us ALL out of ALL public land, whether we behave responsibly
>.> .or not, period.
>.>
>.> 1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
>.> areas, just like bulldozer racing.
>.
>.JUST LIKE bulldozer racing? Wow, that's quite a claim!
>
>Look up "analogy" in your Junior Learner's Dictionary.
Then again, mikey always compares apples to beach balls......
It's just another alter mikey-reality left over from his orange
sunshine days....
LN
Mike Vandeman
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.
.> 1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
.> areas, just like bulldozer racing.
.> 2. Nobody is trying to ban mountain bikers from any park in the world.
.> We only want to ban BIKES. DUH!!!! If you are inplying that you can't
.> go anywhere wthout your bike, why don't you SAY it????
.>
.> And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
.> .far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
.> .
.> .The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
.> .more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
.> .increasing the likelihood of overuse damage.
.>
.> What is "overuse"? If lots of mountain bikers are damaging, then so is
.> ONE. ONE mountain biker just takes a bit longer to do as much damage
.> as many. Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up wildlife and wildlife
.> habitat. DU!!!
.>
.
.Just remember, Mike: all generalities are false.
So I guess all science, which is mostly generalizations, is false? You
are an idiot!
.Yours in the north Maine woods,
.Pete Hilton aka The Ent
.
.
.--
.Second-ratedness, unfailing law of:
.Never be the first to try anything.
. anon.
Spider
> On 12 Apr 2002 19:32:23 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider) wrote:
>
> .mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote in message news:<3cb6df89...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
> .> On Thu, 11 Apr 2002 11:53:25 -0700, "Matt" <ma...@telestream.net>
> .> wrote:
> .>
> .> .You can't blame closures entirely on ill-behaved segments
> .> .of the riding population (doesn't matter whether we're talking
> .> .about motorized or pedal powered, I do both and the problems
> .> .are similar). There are eco-fascists out there (like MV) who want to
> .> .shut us ALL out of ALL public land, whether we behave responsibly
> .> .or not, period.
> .>
> .> 1. Mountain biking is an INHERENTLY irresponsible use of natural
> .> areas, just like bulldozer racing.
> .
> .JUST LIKE bulldozer racing? Wow, that's quite a claim!
>
"Like" indicates an analogy. "Just like" indicates a close analogy.
Look up the word "just"... :)
For an anaolgy to be apt, it has to make sense.
> .> 2. Nobody is trying to ban mountain bikers from any park in the world.
> .> We only want to ban BIKES. DUH!!!! If you are inplying that you can't
> .> go anywhere wthout your bike, why don't you SAY it????
> .
> .Hey, Mike - I can't MOUNTAIN BIKE anywhere without my bike. When I am
> .on my bike, I'm a mountain biker. Without it, I'm a hiker. Duh.
>
> No, you aren't. Without your bike, you are a mountain biker minus his
> bike.
How does one distinguish a walking MTBer from a hiker, then?
Remember, I do both, so please tell me the distguishing
characteristics. (this ought to be fun...)
> Again, look up "-er" in your Kiddie Dictionary.
Don't have one of those. Where did you get yours?
BTW, nice dodge. Semantics are fun..wheee!
> .> And they have dangerously powerful allies in the
> .> .far left portions of goverment, like CA Senator Barbara Boxer.
> .> .
> .> .The sad thing is, the more 'wins' they get (closures) the
> .> .more of us are crammed into smaller and smaller areas,
> .> .increasing the likelihood of overuse damage.
> .>
> .> What is "overuse"? If lots of mountain bikers are damaging, then so is
> .> ONE.
> .
> .Nice lack of logic. If an ecosystem can support three predators, but
> .not 50, would you say two are too many?
>
> No ecosystem can support even ONE mountain biker.
Funny, the one I use supports me just fine.
> Mountain bikes
> DESTROY them.
They do? While I'm asleep in bed, does my bike go out and cut down
trees and pave over wilderness? I didn't know it could do that.
BTW, nice non sequitur. If an ecosystem can support 3 predators, but
not 50, is two too many?
> .> ONE mountain biker just takes a bit longer to do as much damage
> .> as many.
> .
> .Or maybe never. Depends on how many, hmmm? Or how much real damage
> .is done...
>
> You wouldn't know damage if it hit you in the head.
Sounds suspiciously like prevarication on your part.
> .> Knobby tires are DESIGNED to rip up wildlife and wildlife
> .> habitat. DU!!!
> .
> .Designed to rip up wildlife? You mean that there is a tire specially
> .made for bunny killing, and I don't have it??? Damn, who makes that
> .tire? :)
>
> They ALL do that.
Even the slicks, meant for road use? Wow, I learn something new about
MTBing every day!
Please find one reference, any reference, to "ripping up wildlife" as
a design goal of any ORV product. Good luck.
Spider
Ken [NY
How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
Back to lurk mode.
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
"Tax, spend, elect, the people are too
damn dumb to understand."
-Harry Hopkins, Democrat, FDR advisor
http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Zgen/IAChallengeElection2002.html
gazzer
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
news:ngnmbusje8c5ubq64...@4ax.com...
>
> How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
> trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
> or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
> Back to lurk mode.
>
It might be better if you stayed in lurk mode if you're going to make such
moronic comments. Deserts aren't just sand, they're (very) fragile slow
recovering ecosystems, as you should know.
gaz
Milo
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm for the determination by a
federal court that there is no right to mountain bike: it can be
banned any time a land manager feels like doing itand gives a
reasonable rationalization.
That 'reasonable rationalization' bit excludes you then Mike. I
imagine that is a wholly unfamiliar concept to you. Did I catch you
using the 's' word ('science') earlier too? Surely science involves
drawing quantifiable conclusions from recognised and demonstrable
research. If there are any proper examples of this anywhere in your
'collected works', please do draw our attention to them.
Ken [NY
Coming out of lurk mode to reply to non-answer. I ask again:
What in the desert is so fragile that it can live for eons of floods,
sandstorms, droughts, animals etc., yet a bicycle traveling over the
sand can destroy it? Teach me, I want to learn.
Corvus Corvax
> How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
> trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
> or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal. The
particularly insidious thing about tire tracks is that they form a
channel for runoff, so that rainwater widens the scar and extends the
damage. So a single errant track in flourishing desert can turn into a
dead scar that will last for twenty years or more. Put enough of them
together, and what you've got is nothing but a death zone, which is
what your preconception of a desert appears to be. Nothing could be
further from the truth.
571830573294323629934765012348436263285853260687657402192238
Corvus "life in the cracks" Corvax
324908584730535672342307543875016719214012473014020239437239
Paul M Davis
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
Gosh, if you really want to know ask an ecologist who specializes in desert
ecosystems. Start with any of the desert National Parks. I'd imagine any
of them can give you a list of professionals who can answer that for you,
and can provide lists of plants and other organisms. There are still tracks
from the 19th century wagon trains across the Great Basin that are still
centuries away from recovery.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
."Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote
.> How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
.> trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
.> or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
.
.Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
.of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
.with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
.protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
.cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
.track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal. The
.particularly insidious thing about tire tracks is that they form a
.channel for runoff, so that rainwater widens the scar and extends the
.damage. So a single errant track in flourishing desert can turn into a
.dead scar that will last for twenty years or more. Put enough of them
.together, and what you've got is nothing but a death zone, which is
.what your preconception of a desert appears to be. Nothing could be
.further from the truth.
Careful! Mountain bikers aren't interested in the truth.
Ken [NY
>"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote
>> How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
>> trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
>> or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
>
>Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
>of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
>with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
>protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
>cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
>track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
Americans) disturb it?
Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
Lurk mode switched back on.
JoellesHusband
PPPPFFFFTTTTT!!!!!
Doug Swanson
From: Doug Swanson (dswan...@hotmail.com)
Subject: Re: Have a completely shaved cock?
Newsgroups: alt.homosexual
View this article only
Date: 2002-04-09 13:42:19 PST
pink...@cheatcc.com (Joey Howard) wrote in message news:<161d27da.02040...@posting.google.com>...
> bobbi...@aol.com (Bobbie6934) wrote in message news:<20020405134151...@mb-mf.aol.com>...
> > So do I. I am a recent convert and LOVE it (my cock and ass are completely
> > shaved)! If you are completely smooth, please drop me a line. Would love to
> > compare notes. Thanks. (Bi guy in Florida.)
>
> Bobbie! I've been shaving my cock and balls since I was 16. I'm 40
> now and have always been shaved. I use lots of skin softeners too.
> Top men love soft shaved smooth dudes. Have you ever used Nair. They
> have Nair for men now. You'll get high off the smoothness. My cock
> is so sweet, clean, and baby smoooth. Do ya do it with guys and if so
> how do they like ya shaved?
> I've been kept hairless head to toe. It's the best feeeling!
> If anyone else is shaved, gay or bi, drop a line and let us know how
> your partners like it!
I've been for years too. Twas a little itchy at first, but some
hydracortisone (sp?) made it feel a whole lot better.
Doug.
Pics for free, email dswan...@hotmail.com
Post a follow-up to this message
gazzer
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> On 16 Apr 2002 19:44:42 -0700, corvus...@yahoo.com (Corvus Corvax)
> ejaculated:
>
> >"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote
> >> How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
> >> trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
> >> or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
> >
> >Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
> >of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
> >with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
> >protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
> >cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
> >track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
>
> So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
> by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
> only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
> Americans) disturb it?
> Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
> unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
> beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
> Lurk mode switched back on.
>
> Ken (NY)
Do you have shit for brains Ken?
You asked about something you clearly knew fuck all about , and then you
waffle on like a moron when the answers dont support your silly notions.
Lurk away.
GAz
Ken [NY
>> >Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
>> >of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
>> >with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
>> >protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
>> >cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
>> >track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
>>
>> So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
>> by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
>> only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
>> Americans) disturb it?
>> Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
>> unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
>> beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
>> Lurk mode switched back on.
>>
>> Ken (NY)
>
>Do you have shit for brains Ken?
> You asked about something you clearly knew fuck all about , and then you
>waffle on like a moron when the answers dont support your silly notions.
Look, you liberal, pompous, asshole tree-hugger; I'll run this
by you reeeeeally sloooooow sooooo yooooou can keeeeep up:
It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
"desecrating" the desert.
I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
the animals, even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
the precious "bacteria crust" long before the bicycle or SUV was
invented. Were there not burrowing animals such as prairie dogs
inhabiting the desert before now? Didn't birds scrape away at the
ground looking for food? Weren't prospectors riding horses and donkeys
all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil? Wasn't
every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
disturbing the bacteria? Is that way over your pointy little head? If
you can't answer it, just be honest and say so.
Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
enviornment, except maybe for saving some gasoline and keeping co2
levels lower. I don't ride one but I have seen the durn things blamed
here (rec.bicycles.soc) for everything but September 11th, and it's
about time someone said something to counter the horseshit posts like
yours.
And forget the lurk mode, pal. With your fucking name-calling,
you give me a nice reason to kick your liberal ass in future debate
too.
Chris McMartin
> Look, you liberal, pompous, asshole tree-hugger; I'll run this
> by you reeeeeally sloooooow sooooo yooooou can keeeeep up:
> It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
> cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
> "desecrating" the desert.
That claim is true. However, that crust doesn't cover the entire surface.
It is possible to "see and avoid," same as if you were to hike through the
area.
> I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
Probably.
> the animals,
Probably, but to a lesser extent (given the lighter weights of most animals
and the advantage of having said weight distributed over four rather than
two legs).
>even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
> the precious "bacteria crust"
No to the weather-related stuff. Hailstorm, maybe.
> all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil? Wasn't
> every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
> disturbing the bacteria?
No, just like every biker riding across the desert isn't necessarily hitting
these patches of cryptobiotic crust.
> Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
> is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
> enviornment,
They have SOMETHING to do with the environment, but that "something" is
miniscule relative to other activities which have much greater impact.
I'm only speaking from my personal observations of the "crust" in various
areas of the Southwest. Some extremist may probably disagree with what I've
said. I haven't had the pleasure of biking in those areas, but when I hike
I know enough to stay off the "endangered dirt" (as Christian Slater put it
in "Broken Arrow"), much like I don't sit down on a cactus if I need to
rest.
Chris, a Republican mountain biker
--
http://www.mcmartinville.com
Last Update 21 December 2001
Corvus Corvax
>
> So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
> by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it?
Yes. Unsustainable land use is believed to be a major factor in the
collapse of the Anasazi civilization around the year 1200:
http://www.cpluhna.nau.edu/Places/chaco_canyon2.htm
http://www.cia-g.com/~rockets/anasazi.htm
I know that providing you with extensively referenced articles is
probably asking too much of your intellectual capacity. To put it in
terms your little mind can understand: they trashed the place, and
much of the damage they did is still evident 800 years later.
> Or does it
only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
> Americans) disturb it?
Interesting that you feel compelled to turn this into a racial issue.
Here's some science to chew on while you get over your Anglo
persecution complex:
http://www.soilcrust.org/
http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/biology/crypto/
Try not to move your lips when you read it.
> Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
> unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
> beliefs.
Funny. It looked to me more like a public display of willful ignorance
to me.
> Sometimes I can't help it.
That's ok. You can go back to watching "Fox News" now.
571830573294323629934765012348436263285853260687657402192238
Corvus "pearls before swine" Corvax
324908584730535672342307543875016719214012473014020239437239
Spider
> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56:12 +0800, "gazzer" <.> ejaculated:
>
> >> >Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
> >> >of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
> >> >with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
> >> >protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
> >> >cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
> >> >track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
> >>
> >> So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
> >> by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
> >> only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
> >> Americans) disturb it?
> >> Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
> >> unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
> >> beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
> >> Lurk mode switched back on.
> >>
> >> Ken (NY)
> >
> >Do you have shit for brains Ken?
> > You asked about something you clearly knew fuck all about , and then you
> >waffle on like a moron when the answers dont support your silly notions.
>
> Look, you liberal, pompous, asshole tree-hugger; I'll run this
> by you reeeeeally sloooooow sooooo yooooou can keeeeep up:
Ahhh, another conservative who can't actual come up with facts, but
instead needs to namecall. Typical.
Ken, you don't know shit about desert ecology, so why don't you shut
up and learn something?
> It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
> cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
> "desecrating" the desert.
This is true. Dunno about "desecrating" - this would imply the desert
is sacred.
> I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
> the animals, even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
> the precious "bacteria crust" long before the bicycle or SUV was
> invented.
Sure. Who mentioned SUVs? Do you think a praire dog and a bicycle
have similar impact? How about an SUV and a bicycle?
> Were there not burrowing animals such as prairie dogs
> inhabiting the desert before now? Didn't birds scrape away at the
> ground looking for food? Weren't prospectors riding horses and donkeys
> all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil? Wasn't
> every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
> disturbing the bacteria? Is that way over your pointy little head? If
> you can't answer it, just be honest and say so.
All of those things damage the soil. To what extent? Very small to
very large, one might imagine. A farmer grazing his cattle on public
land might cause more damage than all the bicyclers put together.
> Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
> is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
> enviornment, except maybe for saving some gasoline and keeping co2
> levels lower.
Then what's with the racist, thin-skinned bullshit attitude? Bikes
can cause damage, and so can the other things. That doesn't mean we
should ignore them all, right? The desert *can* recover, if given
time.
> I don't ride one but I have seen the durn things blamed
> here (rec.bicycles.soc) for everything but September 11th, and it's
> about time someone said something to counter the horseshit posts like
> yours.
Err, I think your brain cell has just burst. Don't you wish you knew
what you were talking about?
> And forget the lurk mode, pal. With your fucking name-calling,
> you give me a nice reason to kick your liberal ass in future debate
> too.
If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose
(as the saying goes.) Take your white-supremicist ass on home and
tell your mom Spider said last night was fun.
Debate? Bring it on, dimwit.
Spider
Ken [NY
<newsg...@mountainboomer.com> ejaculated:
>> Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
>> is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
>> enviornment,
>
>They have SOMETHING to do with the environment, but that "something" is
>miniscule relative to other activities which have much greater impact.
Thank you.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message news:<srh8cu8i2jik1k3gv...@4ax.com>...
>> On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56:12 +0800, "gazzer" <.> ejaculated:
>>
>> >> >Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
>> >> >of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
>> >> >with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
>> >> >protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
>> >> >cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
>> >> >track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
>> >>
>> >> So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
>> >> by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
>> >> only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
>> >> Americans) disturb it?
>> >> Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
>> >> unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
>> >> beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
>> >> Lurk mode switched back on.
>> >>
>> >> Ken (NY)
>> >
>> >Do you have shit for brains Ken?
>> > You asked about something you clearly knew fuck all about , and then you
>> >waffle on like a moron when the answers dont support your silly notions.
>>
>> Look, you liberal, pompous, asshole tree-hugger; I'll run this
>> by you reeeeeally sloooooow sooooo yooooou can keeeeep up:
>
>Ahhh, another conservative who can't actual come up with facts, but
>instead needs to namecall. Typical.
I didn't start the name-calling. Look just at the paragraph I
was responding to. It's above my paragraph. As a liberal, you probably
didn't read the entire post. Typical.
>Ken, you don't know shit about desert ecology, so why don't you shut
>up and learn something?
I was doing that, but when I ask questions that challenge the
politically correct statements, I get no clear answers, just more
juvenile name-calling like you just offered - and I'm told to shut up.
Typical left-wing version of free speech.
>> It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
>> cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
>> "desecrating" the desert.
>
>This is true. Dunno about "desecrating" - this would imply the desert
>is sacred.
des·e·crate
Pronunciation: 'de-si-"krAt
Function: transitive verb
2 : to treat disrespectfully, irreverently, or outrageously <the kind
of shore development ... that has desecrated so many waterfronts --
>> I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
>> the animals, even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
>> the precious "bacteria crust" long before the bicycle or SUV was
>> invented.
>
>Sure. Who mentioned SUVs?
I mentioned SUVs. Why shouldn't concerns about desecrated
desert land be laid at the feet of the SUVers who lurch around the
desert, tearing up the ground? Why blame bicycles which have such
minute surface contact?
> Do you think a praire dog and a bicycle
>have similar impact? How about an SUV and a bicycle?
Do herds of cattle or buffaloes have a similar impact as a
bicycle? Are there any discussions about banning those animals as
there are about banning bikes? And I have seen the damage done by
prarie dogs - it is extensive. You said I "...don't know shit about
desert ecology...", yet you have not witnessed prarie dog holes?
Haven't you ever actually been to a desert?
>> Were there not burrowing animals such as prairie dogs
>> inhabiting the desert before now? Didn't birds scrape away at the
>> ground looking for food? Weren't prospectors riding horses and donkeys
>> all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil? Wasn't
>> every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
>> disturbing the bacteria? Is that way over your pointy little head? If
>> you can't answer it, just be honest and say so.
>
>All of those things damage the soil. To what extent? Very small to
>very large, one might imagine. A farmer grazing his cattle on public
>land might cause more damage than all the bicyclers put together.
That's my point.
>> Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
>> is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
>> enviornment, except maybe for saving some gasoline and keeping co2
>> levels lower.
>
>Then what's with the racist, thin-skinned bullshit attitude? Bikes
>can cause damage, and so can the other things. That doesn't mean we
>should ignore them all, right? The desert *can* recover, if given
>time.
Racist? I don't know where you got that. Unless my mentioning
Indians, the settlers and prospectors somehow equates racism to you.
And again, the name calling came in response to several
flames.
I am just pointing out that bikes are not worth raising such
hell about when there are so many other things that have affected the
desert ecology for eons.
Ecology freaks tend toward hyperbole when making arguments,
and are almost never challenged. We had a thread discussing the great
job the recording business is doing in saving the planet by making
smaller cardboard CD packing cases. Have you ever seen a huge amount
of cardboard CD cases covering the ground anywhere?
>> I don't ride one but I have seen the durn things blamed
>> here (rec.bicycles.soc) for everything but September 11th, and it's
>> about time someone said something to counter the horseshit posts like
>> yours.
>
>Err, I think your brain cell has just burst. Don't you wish you knew
>what you were talking about?
Stick around and open your eyes. You apparently do not notice
the frequent attacks on mountain biking here in alt.bicycles.soc.
>> And forget the lurk mode, pal. With your fucking name-calling,
>> you give me a nice reason to kick your liberal ass in future debate
>> too.
>
>If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose
>(as the saying goes.) Take your white-supremicist ass on home and
>tell your mom Spider said last night was fun.
Tell me once again about how you are above name-calling. And
again, what have I said that would constitute racism? The prospectors
and settlers were mostly white. Or are you just using the word racism
because it is one of the handy offensive charges that liberals like to
throw around at people who ask questions they can't answer?
>Debate? Bring it on, dimwit.
Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel. Like most
tree-huggers, you don't reason, you argue with slogans when the
questions get under your skin.
Warm regards,
Reco Diver
<Snip>
> It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
> cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
> "desecrating" the desert.
That claim has been reviewed and studied in several area's in the
southwest, including areas in and around Arches National Park and Glen
Canyon National Recreation Area. The results of the studies are fairly
clear: Disturbance of cryptobiotic soils can cause damage that may
take from ~3 to 250 years to recover.
> I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
> the animals, even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
> the precious "bacteria crust" long before the bicycle or SUV was
> invented.
Wind and rain tend to have little effect on the crusts. Catastrophic
events like floods and extreme fire events do cause damage as does
trampling (man or animal). Bicycle and SUV travels tend to spread the
damage differently than trampling. The continuous line of damage left
by wheeled travel, creates wind and water channels. These channels
have an effect on the crusts that is similar to the "edge effect" in
forestry. Trampling tends to leave a patchwork of crusts, thereby
limiting the channeling.
Part of what is missing in this equation in the number of users of an
area. Consider that the most recent estimates for visitation to Moab
last year was ~ 3 million (numbers based on Moab city government, Utah
State Parks, and NPS figures). That is more people visiting that area
in one year than have lived there from settlement through the Uranium
boom years. Increased visitation tends to create increased impact. And
the number one visitor activity in moab is still mountainbiking.
> Were there not burrowing animals such as prairie dogs
> inhabiting the desert before now?
Depends on the area. In the southwest one tends to find the most
developed crusts in areas where there is very little other vegetation.
Soils tend to be thin reg to erg which really precludes animals like
pairie dogs. In other areas, like high mountain tundra in Arizona,
small burrowing animals may actually help spread the basic lifeforms
that comprise cryptobiotic soil.
> Didn't birds scrape away at the
> ground looking for food?
Birds don't really have the compressional impact of wheeled transport.
> Weren't prospectors riding horses and donkeys
> all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil?
In the four-Corners region, the greatest amount of prospecting and
mining came from the Uranium, Coal, and oil and gas industries. The
majority of this exploration came after WWII. Horse and donkey
(burros) single blanket prospectors had relatively little impact in
this area. Previous to the Uranium boom, the greates impact in the
area was from farming and ranching.
> Wasn't
> every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
> disturbing the bacteria?
Absolutey! It is hard to estimate how much crytobiotis soil has been
destroyed, and we have yet to understand its exact nature. We do know
that it holds the soil in areas that are not habitable by macro-flora.
<snip>
> Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
> is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
> enviornment,
There is evidence out there if one cares to look. In the particular
environmental niche that JD's article is talking about, bicyclists
have had an, unfortunately, negative impact on cryptobiotic soils (so
have other users). When considering reports of cryptobiotic soil
damage, take into consideration: (1) that wheeled transport on a unit
by unit basis does more damage than foot travel over the same
territory. (2)That the number of users in the area is increasing. (3)
That the number 1 recreational activity in areas like moab is
mountainbiking. (4) That mountain bike are often allowed in areas
where other wheeled transport is not.
This is not to say that mountainbike are the only ones causing the
destruction, or that they cause "the worst/ most" destruction. But if
moutainbikes are to continue to have access to areas where
cryptobiotic soils are then the riders must recognize the posible
destruction of habitat and do what is neccessary to mitage the
problem, such as navigating around the area.
This is also not to say that other users don't have negative impacts
on cryptobiotic soils. But the damage that other users do does not
excuse bicyclists from making attempts to mitigate the damage thay
might cause.
> except maybe for saving some gasoline and keeping co2
> levels lower.
interesting thought.
Reco
Far from liberal in all thing except my love of Scotch
Spider
So, that makes it OK, right? If calling you names is wrong, then the
same sort of proscription should also apply to you.
> As a liberal, you probably
> didn't read the entire post. Typical.
BWAHAHAHA! Again, that shows you don't know shit about anything. I'm
no more a liberal than Ted Kennedy is conservative. I disrespect BOTH
narrow, self-serving extremes.
> >Ken, you don't know shit about desert ecology, so why don't you shut
> >up and learn something?
>
> I was doing that, but when I ask questions that challenge the
> politically correct statements, I get no clear answers, just more
> juvenile name-calling like you just offered - and I'm told to shut up.
Juvenile name-calling - that's rich.
You made some assumptions, and used some racially-charged comments,
and got exactly the response you deserved. Is your browser broken,
such that you can't go look this stuff up before spewing your guts?
Corvax's answer was just fine, seems to me.
> >> It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
> >> cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
> >> "desecrating" the desert.
> >
> >This is true. Dunno about "desecrating" - this would imply the desert
> >is sacred.
<snip>
What is the root of "desecrate," dimwit?
> >> I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
> >> the animals, even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
> >> the precious "bacteria crust" long before the bicycle or SUV was
> >> invented.
> >
> >Sure. Who mentioned SUVs?
>
> I mentioned SUVs.
Why? We're talking about bicycles. In a debate, one usually tries to
stay with the same subject, instead of bringing up non sequitur
arguments.
> Why shouldn't concerns about desecrated
> desert land be laid at the feet of the SUVers who lurch around the
> desert, tearing up the ground?
Who says it isn't a concern? We're talking about bicycles.
> Why blame bicycles which have such
> minute surface contact?
Type of contact and amount of use - try thinking for a change, and
learn something.
> > Do you think a praire dog and a bicycle
> >have similar impact? How about an SUV and a bicycle?
>
> Do herds of cattle or buffaloes have a similar impact as a
> bicycle? Are there any discussions about banning those animals as
> there are about banning bikes?
Cattle interests have a powerful conservative lobby. So, no.
Buffalo? In the desert? You don't know shit about the geology or
biology of the desert. Educate yourself, and you won't look so
stupendously idiotic.
> And I have seen the damage done by
> prarie dogs - it is extensive.
In the desert? Bullshit.
> You said I "...don't know shit about
> desert ecology...", yet you have not witnessed prarie dog holes?
Not in the desert, dimwit.
> Haven't you ever actually been to a desert?
Yes, obviously more times than you. Once would have been enough,
obviously.
> >> Were there not burrowing animals such as prairie dogs
> >> inhabiting the desert before now? Didn't birds scrape away at the
> >> ground looking for food? Weren't prospectors riding horses and donkeys
> >> all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil? Wasn't
> >> every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
> >> disturbing the bacteria? Is that way over your pointy little head? If
> >> you can't answer it, just be honest and say so.
> >
> >All of those things damage the soil. To what extent? Very small to
> >very large, one might imagine. A farmer grazing his cattle on public
> >land might cause more damage than all the bicyclers put together.
>
> That's my point.
You make it in such a fucked-up fashion as to be laughable.
> >> Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
> >> is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
> >> enviornment, except maybe for saving some gasoline and keeping co2
> >> levels lower.
> >
> >Then what's with the racist, thin-skinned bullshit attitude? Bikes
> >can cause damage, and so can the other things. That doesn't mean we
> >should ignore them all, right? The desert *can* recover, if given
> >time.
>
> Racist? I don't know where you got that.
"Indian" and "white man." Looks like racial references to me.
> And again, the name calling came in response to several
> flames.
Hey, if you were interested in info, you could have looked it up.
Don't bitch about the flames, your whining brought them on.
> I am just pointing out that bikes are not worth raising such
> hell about when there are so many other things that have affected the
> desert ecology for eons.
Wow, we are in agreement. But that is not to say that bike riders
should not be careful about where and how they ride.
> Ecology freaks tend toward hyperbole when making arguments,
As do conservatives.
> >> I don't ride one but I have seen the durn things blamed
> >> here (rec.bicycles.soc) for everything but September 11th, and it's
> >> about time someone said something to counter the horseshit posts like
> >> yours.
> >
> >Err, I think your brain cell has just burst. Don't you wish you knew
> >what you were talking about?
>
> Stick around and open your eyes. You apparently do not notice
> the frequent attacks on mountain biking here in alt.bicycles.soc.
Hey, dumbass - look at the top of the post. See all those newsgroups?
Hey, the light dawns, huh? Now, look and see who makes most of these
assinine posts: Mike Vandeman. Stick around and pull your head out
of your ass and you'll figure it out soon enough.
> >> And forget the lurk mode, pal. With your fucking name-calling,
> >> you give me a nice reason to kick your liberal ass in future debate
> >> too.
> >
> >If brains were dynamite, you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose
> >(as the saying goes.) Take your white-supremicist ass on home and
> >tell your mom Spider said last night was fun.
>
> Tell me once again about how you are above name-calling.
I didn't the first time. Now you are lying to try and make a point?
Typical conservative.
> And
> again, what have I said that would constitute racism?
See above, Mr. Aryan.
> The prospectors
> and settlers were mostly white.
Nice subject change. But still, what tiny difference does race make?
You brought race up, so...
> >Debate? Bring it on, dimwit.
>
> Debating you is like shooting fish in a barrel.
LOL! Sure it is.
> Like most
> tree-huggers, you don't reason, you argue with slogans when the
> questions get under your skin.
Slogans? Who's pitching around political labels and slogans like
"tree-huggers?" Yup, Mr. Hypocrite. Nice try, doofus.
Show me some more "logic" Kenny - I love your brand; it's quite
hilarious.
Spider
gazzer
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
Look Ken , we all know this topic is just some kind of podium for you to set
yourself up as the non-pc saviour of us repressed liberal tree huggers. What
we really need is for you to rescue us from our ignorance by blasting
through sensitive areas whilst presumably mumbling about how some other
damage has been caused, by someone else, some other time .
You're not a mountain biker, you're just a prick, and you know it, and
there's nothing you can say to change it.
Cheers.
gaz
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>> Racist? I don't know where you got that.
>
>"Indian" and "white man." Looks like racial references to me.
I was comparing the damage done by the occupants of this
country centuries before the present bike riders, the majority of whom
are white. Who do you think those ancient people were? Arabs?
You are a loon.
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
http://www.danielfaulkner.com/
for the truth about Mumia Abu-Jamal
No trees were harmed to bring you
this e-Presentation...
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
Thank you. I figured that if I made a pest of myself long
enough, someone with a brain would answer my questions.
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
Ken [NY
>Look Ken , we all know this topic is just some kind of podium for you to set
>yourself up as the non-pc saviour of us repressed liberal tree huggers. What
>we really need is for you to rescue us from our ignorance by blasting
>through sensitive areas whilst presumably mumbling about how some other
>damage has been caused, by someone else, some other time .
>You're not a mountain biker, you're just a prick, and you know it, and
>there's nothing you can say to change it.
There are a lot of us pricks out here. We are the real rebels
these days. We are the ones who pee in your swimming pool at night. I
even have eaten a sandwich at a public fast to make the protestors
drool and like to flush three times during NY droughts.
Power to the pee-ple!
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
Spider
> On 23 Apr 2002 15:48:46 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider)
> ejaculated:
>
> >> Racist? I don't know where you got that.
> >
> >"Indian" and "white man." Looks like racial references to me.
>
> I was comparing the damage done by the occupants of this
> country centuries before the present bike riders, the majority of whom
> are white.
Well, I'm glad you recognize that the rest of your arguments were pure
crap from the beginning. Thank you for kindly snipping them.
Again, I ask you - WTF does race have to do with anything? How does
it bear on the subject AT ALL?
And what does the damage done by the ancient natives have to do with
modern bicycles?
> Who do you think those ancient people were? Arabs?
Strawman argumentation.
> You are a loon.
And you are a stupid racist (a redundancy.)
Spider
gazzer
"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote in message
> On Wed, 24 Apr 2002 12:44:39 +0800, "gazzer" <.> ejaculated:
>
> >Look Ken , we all know this topic is just some kind of podium for you to
set
> >yourself up as the non-pc saviour of us repressed liberal tree huggers.
What
> >we really need is for you to rescue us from our ignorance by blasting
> >through sensitive areas whilst presumably mumbling about how some other
> >damage has been caused, by someone else, some other time .
> >You're not a mountain biker, you're just a prick, and you know it, and
> >there's nothing you can say to change it.
>
> There are a lot of us pricks out here. We are the real rebels
> these days. We are the ones who pee in your swimming pool at night. I
> even have eaten a sandwich at a public fast to make the protestors
> drool and like to flush three times during NY droughts.
> Power to the pee-ple!
>
> Ken (NY)
> --
Someones been watching Fight Club too often.
Gaz
Mike Vandeman
<bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
.On 16 Apr 2002 19:44:42 -0700, corvus...@yahoo.com (Corvus Corvax)
.ejaculated:
.
.>"Ken [NY" <bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote
.>> How does one go about desecrating a desert? Flood it? I am
.>> trying to picture a square mile of sand being destroyed by a bicycle
.>> or SUV, and somehow no picture comes to mind.
.>
.>Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
.>of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
.>with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
.>protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
.>cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
.>track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
.
. So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
.by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
.only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
.Americans) disturb it?
No, of course. But someone WALKING destroys A LOT LESS than a biker,
who travels SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST & AS FAR as a walker.
. Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
.unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
.beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
I'm not uncomfortable at all! Yoy forget that I advocate removing all
humans from wildlife habitat. YOU don't, hypocrite.
. Lurk mode switched back on.
.
. Ken (NY)
.--
.Chairbeing,
.Department of Redundancy Department
.___________________________________
."Tax, spend, elect, the people are too
.damn dumb to understand."
. -Harry Hopkins, Democrat, FDR advisor
.http://www.usiap.org/Viewpoints/Zgen/IAChallengeElection2002.html
Mike Vandeman
<bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
.On Mon, 22 Apr 2002 10:56:12 +0800, "gazzer" <.> ejaculated:
.
.>> >Desert isn't just "sand," nor is it barren. A distinguishing feature
.>> >of the desert out JD's way is cryptobiotic soil, which is, uh, "sand",
.>> >with a shallow crust of bacteria which holds the soil together and
.>> >protects it very effectively from erosion from wind and water. But the
.>> >cryptobiotic crust is extremely delicate, and a footprint or a tire
.>> >track will leave a scar that will take decades to heal.
.>>
.>> So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
.>> by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
.>> only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
.>> Americans) disturb it?
.>> Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
.>> unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
.>> beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
.>> Lurk mode switched back on.
.>>
.>> Ken (NY)
.>
.>Do you have shit for brains Ken?
.> You asked about something you clearly knew fuck all about , and then you
.>waffle on like a moron when the answers dont support your silly notions.
.
. Look, you liberal, pompous, asshole tree-hugger; I'll run this
.by you reeeeeally sloooooow sooooo yooooou can keeeeep up:
. It was claimed that a bicycle riding across the desert can
.cause irrepairable damage and destroy the "bacteria crust", thereby
."desecrating" the desert.
True!
. I simply wanted to know then if the Indians, the settlers,
.the animals, even the sandstorms, rain and floods - were disturbing
.the precious "bacteria crust" long before the bicycle or SUV was
.invented. Were there not burrowing animals such as prairie dogs
.inhabiting the desert before now? Didn't birds scrape away at the
.ground looking for food?
The desert ecosystem has had MILLIONS OF YEARS to learn to deal with
its natural inhabitants, so they are fine. Besides which, we don't
care to micro-manage the desert!
Weren't prospectors riding horses and donkeys
.all over the desert for centuries and digging in the soil?
On an evolutionary time scale, that is NOTHING. It is not long enough
for the desert inhabitants to evolve and learn how to cope with these
newcomers. If you knew ANYTHING about biology, you would know that!
Besides, what someone ELSE does in no way excuses what YOU do.
Wasn't
.every trail, every Indian path, every paved highway and every railroad
.disturbing the bacteria? Is that way over your pointy little head? If
.you can't answer it, just be honest and say so.
. Absent any compelling evidence to the contrary, my conclusion
.is that mountain bikes have little or nothing to do with the
.enviornment, except maybe for saving some gasoline and keeping co2
.levels lower. I don't ride one but I have seen the durn things blamed
.here (rec.bicycles.soc) for everything but September 11th, and it's
.about time someone said something to counter the horseshit posts like
.yours.
. And forget the lurk mode, pal. With your fucking name-calling,
.you give me a nice reason to kick your liberal ass in future debate
.too.
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>. Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
>.unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
>.beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
>
>I'm not uncomfortable at all! Yoy forget that I advocate removing all
>humans from wildlife habitat. YOU don't, hypocrite.
Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
Ken (NY)
--
Chairbeing,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
Ken [NY
ejaculated:
>Again, I ask you - WTF does race have to do with anything? How does
>it bear on the subject AT ALL?
I used race to describe who I was talking about. Like this:
For eons, animals burrowed the desert, disturbing the poor
bacteria. Then the Indians came and damaged the bacteria with the
hooves of their horses. Next came the white adventurers, prospectors
and settlers. The whites dug up the desert to build roads and
railways. Now the bikers have come to enjoy their desert, and are
being dumped on for no good reason.
Ok, now to be politically correct, we will read the same
paragraph using race-neutral words. And we might as well be
gender-neutral as well. Mustn't disturb the NOW people. Come to think
of it, we don't want to get the animal rights people angry so we will
be species-neutral as well:
For eons, they burrowed the desert, disturbing the desert.
Then they came and damaged the desert. Next they came and dug up the
desert to build roads and railways. Now they have come to enjoy their
desert, and are being dumped on for no good reason.
Better? Hey, you got something there. Gosh, I feel like
holding hands and chanting liberal slogans. Feeeels sooooo gooooood!
Cheers,
Mike Vandeman
<bluesgu...@aol.PANTScom> wrote:
.On Sat, 27 Apr 2002 00:23:11 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
.ejaculated:
.
.>. Never mind. I realize that I am asking uncomfortable,
.>.unaswerable right-wing questions and really didn't mean to upset your
.>.beliefs. Sometimes I can't help it.
.>
.>I'm not uncomfortable at all! Yoy forget that I advocate removing all
.>humans from wildlife habitat. YOU don't, hypocrite.
.
. Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
.as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
BS. Humans are native to AFRICA. Everywhere else, we are a rank
newcomer (exotic species).
Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
October 12, 1997
The Problem
___________
Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate,
every square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea,
is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species
per day. Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the primary
____________
reasons why species have become extinct or are in danger of
becoming extinct.
Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning
it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not
the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as
habitat. Anything that makes it unattractive or unavailable to a
given species causes habitat loss. Have you ever wondered why most
animals run away when we come near? It certainly isn't because they
love having us around! Many animals simply will not tolerate the
presence of humans. The grizzly bear and mountain lion are just two
examples. The grizzly needs a huge territory, can smell and hear a
human being from a great distance, and will avoid going near a
road.
Humans are the ants at every other species' picnic. One of the
__________________________________________________
first things that children learn about wild animals is that most of
them run (fly, swim, slither, hop) away whenever we get close to
them. (A few, such as mosquitoes, like having us around.) Some are
more tolerant of us than others, but in any given area, there are
at least some that don't like having us around.
Let's take as a premise that we do not want to cause any
extinctions. I think that most people agree with that. But what
follows, is that we have to set aside adequate habitat for all
existing species, and that much of it must be human-free. That is
not understood by most people, even most biologists. We claim to
___
believe in the Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans.
It has been said that "The measure of a culture is how well it
treats its least powerful members". By this, our own measure, human
society is a failure in its relations with the rest of creation.
In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area
off limits to humans -- an area which we deliberately choose not to
enter so that the species that live there can flourish unmolested
by humans. There are places called "wildlife sanctuaries", where
______
human recreation, hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining
are usually allowed. There are a few places where only biologists
and land managers are allowed (e.g. California's condor sanctuary).
There have been places called "sacred", where only priests could go
(in other words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But
to my knowledge, there has never been any place, however small,
from which the human community has voluntarily excluded itself.
There has been a lot of talk in recent years about looking for life
on other planets. For its sake, I hope we never find it! Why, after
___
the inconsiderate way we have treated wildlife on this planet,
____
should we be allowed to invade the even more fragile habitats that
may be found in other places? While the thought of finding such
life is intriguing, I haven't heard anyone suggest that we consider
its feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it would want to
___
be left alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!). How are
we going to communicate with intelligent life on other planets,
when we can't even communicate with the intelligent life on this
____
planet? Besides, since the laws of physics and chemistry are
universal, it is unlikely that any such organisms would be
dramatically different from those on Earth.
What scientific evidence do we have that wildlife need to be free
of human intrusion? Not much, probably because scientists are
people, and like the rest of us are instinctively curious about
every thing and every place, and don't care to be excluded from
anywhere. For most of us, travel is just entertainment, but
scientists probably see their livelihood and success as depending
on being able to travel to any part of the globe and "collect"
(i.e., kill) any organism they find there. I doubt that there are
many scientific studies of the environmental harm done by the
pursuit of science.
(As recently as 1979 (Wilkins and Peterson, p. 178), we find
statements like "Populations of wild animals can have the annual
surplus cropped without harm". Insect field guides, e.g. Powell and
Hogue (1979), also recommend collecting insects as "an exciting and
satisfying hobby for anyone" (p. 359). Does that mean that
collecting grizzlies or tigers is also an acceptable "hobby"?)
However, there is recent research (e.g. Knight and Gutzwiller,
__
1995) showing that recreation, even activity traditionally thought
of as harmless to wildlife, can be harmful, or even deadly:
"Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were
considered to be 'nonconsumptive' activities because removal of
animals from their natural habitats did not occur....
nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign
in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a
growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can have
serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p. 257). "Activities
[involving] nonmotorized travel ... [have] caused the creation of
more ... trails in wildlands.... These activities are extensive in
nature and have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways,
particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p. 56).
"Recreational disturbance has traditionally been viewed as most
detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it
has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal's
breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p. 73). "People
have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no
matter what the activity" (p. 157). "Perhaps the major way that
people have influenced wildlife populations is through encroachment
into wildlife areas" (p. 160). "Recreationists are, ironically,
destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion
of nature.... The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the
same page with interests that are cutting the last of the old-
growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring
billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340).
(Note: wildlife have a hard time distinguishing between biologists
and recreationists!)
In other words, if we are to preserve the other species with which
we share the Earth, we need to set aside large, interconnected
areas of habitat that are entirely off limits to humans ("pure
habitat"). Our idea of what constitutes viable habitat is not
___
important; what matters is how the wildlife who live there think.
When a road is built through a habitat area, many species will not
cross it, even though they are physically capable of doing so. For
example, a bird that prefers dense forest may be afraid to cross
such an open area where they may be vulnerable to attack by their
predators. The result is a loss of habitat: a portion of their
preferred mates, foods, and other resources have become effectively
unavailable. This can reduce population sizes, cause inbreeding,
___________
impoverish their gene pool, and impair their ability to adapt to
changing circumstances (such as global warming). It can lead to
local (and eventually, final) extinction. Small, isolated
populations can easily be wiped out by a fire or other disaster.
Other species are not as flexible as we are. We can survive
practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places as well!
What Wildlife Need
__________________
Wildlife are not that different from us. Chimpanzees, for example,
are genetically 98% identical with us. Therefore, we should expect
that they need just what we need: a place to live that contains all
_________________
necessary resources (food, water, shelter, potential mates, etc.).
It is not too hard to tell when animals are dissatisfied -- they
vote with their feet; they die, or leave. The key is to look at
things from the wildlife's point of view. As simple and obvious as
it sounds, it is rarely done. For example, how often do road
builders consider how wildlife will get across the road? My cat
communicates clearly what he wants: when he wants to go out, he
whines and then goes to the door and stares at the doorknob; when
he is hungry, he leads me to the refrigerator or his dish. We are
proud of our power of empathy, but rarely apply it to wildlife. We
don't want to be bothered by wildlife in our homes; wildlife
apparently feel the same.
"Pure Habitat"
______________
Go to any library, and try to find a book on human-free habitat.
Apparently, there aren't any! There isn't even a subject heading
______
for it in the Library of Congress subject index. I spent two days
in the University of California's Biology Library (in Berkeley), a
very prestigious collection, without success. The closest subject
is probably "wilderness", but wilderness is always considered a
place for human recreation. So-called "wildlife sanctuaries"
encourage recreation, and often allow hunting, logging, oil
drilling, or even mining. The category "animal-human relationships"
should contain such a book, but doesn't. The idea is conceivable,
because I just did it, but apparently no one has even considered it
important enough to write about, since we "own the entire Earth".
I once read Dolores LaChapelle's Sacred Land Sacred Sex (1988),
______________________
hoping to learn what sacred land is. I didn't find an answer in the
book, but I took the fact that sacred land is often restricted to
the "priesthood" to imply that sacred land is honored by not going
_________
there! So we could say that human-free habitat is "sacred" land,
_____
except to priests and scientists (a type of "priest"), who are
always allowed to go there. (This is another indication that
science desacralizes whatever it touches. Ironically, it is science
that has proven the need for sacred land!) Probably the simplest
____
term is "pure [wildlife] habitat", but "wilderness" and "wildlife
sanctuary" should be synonymous with it. ("Wildlife" is "all non-
______
human, nondomesticated species", and thus doesn't include us.)
(Note: I am not talking about de facto human-free habitat, that is
________
off-limits simply because it is difficult to get to, such as the
inside of a volcano or the bottom of the ocean. Such areas will all
be visited in time, as technology becomes available that makes them
accessible. The key is the conscious decision of the human
community to restrain itself from going there.)
Why Create Pure Habitat?
________________________
Some wildlife are sensitive to the presence of people. In order to
preserve them, we need to create areas off-limits to humans.
It's educational. Publicity about areas where people aren't allowed
teaches people about what wildlife need, and how to preserve them.
Some animals are more dangerous to people or livestock than humans
are willing to accept (e.g. tigers or grizzlies). The only way we
can preserve such species is to grant them a place to live where
there are no people or livestock. Otherwise, whenever they attack
someone, we kill them, as recently happened to a tiger that
attacked a zoo employee in India.
The more accessible an area is to people, the less it is respected.
"Sacred" land is accorded the highest respect. "Terra incognito"
was not even mapped. A map tells people (nonverbally) that it is
okay to go there. So do trails. Roads, which are built by
bulldozer, "say" that we can do anything we want to the land. Many
park trails are now created by bulldozer. Even when bikes aren't
allowed there, it is hard to keep them out, because the use of a
bulldozer indicates that the land is not important, and that rough
treatment won't hurt it. Part of being sacred is the feeling of
mystery. Mapping, roads, and other aids to human access destroy
_______
much of that feeling of mystery. For example, a map trivializes all
areas and reduces them to a few lines and colors on paper. Beauty
(except for some "scenic highways") and biodiversity are generally
ignored.
Wildlife generally prefer human-free habitat. Since they are so
similar to us (98%, in the case of the chimpanzee, and probably a
similar large percentage for every other species), we have very
little excuse to treat them differently. If we deserve to be
__
unmolested in our homes, so do they.
There are too many species on the Earth, and too little time, to
study them all and determine their precise habitat requirements.
The only safe course is to assume that they all need at least the
________
habitat that they now occupy, and preferably, access to their
traditional territory. Or, as Aldo Leopold said, we need to "save
all the pieces".
Obviously, we need to experience wilderness in order to appreciate
it. But equally obviously, we need to practice restraint, if we are
to preserve that wilderness. Having areas completely off-limits to
humans will remind us of that need to practice restraint. It is a
reminder of the importance of humility, like the practice of saying
grace before meals.
It is the right thing to do. Why not ask for what we want?
Practical Considerations
________________________
Parks, because they already provide some protection, are a good
place to start building a network of wildlife sanctuaries. They
provide the "seeds" of a "full-function" habitat-and-corridor
matrix designed to preserve our biological heritage. But they need
to be changed and renamed, because "parks" are, by definition and
practice, places for pleasuring humans. Many parks should be
allowed to revert to wilderness, and wilderness should be a place
that we enter rarely, reverently, and on its own terms.
It is obviously nearly always impractical to maintain an area free
of people by force. Probably the best that we can do is to remove
all human artifacts, including nearby trails and roads. (This
should be done soon, because it will become enormously more
expensive, as soon as we run out of oil!) Then a few people may be
able to enter the area, but at least it will be at their own risk
(no helicopter rescues!). If we aren't going to go there, then we
don't need to retain the area on maps; they can be "de-mapped" and
replaced with a blank spot and the words "terra incognito".
Roads and other rights-of-way are a particular problem. Due to the
fragmenting effect of any such corridor, where it cannot avoid
crossing a habitat area, it should, if possible, tunnel under the
____________
wildlife area, so that wildlife can travel freely across it.
Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?
_____________________________________________
Everywhere. In large wilderness areas, there should be large
__________
wildlife sanctuaries, but even in cities, and back yards, where
there is less viable habitat available, some of it should still be
set aside for the exclusive use of wildlife, because (a) it is
fair, and (b) it would serve to remind us to always keep wildlife
in mind, just as indoor shrines in Japanese homes (and photos on
our fireplace mantels) serve as a constant cue to remember gods and
deceased relatives. After all, most human habitations are located
on land that was also attractive to wildlife (e.g., near a source
of drinking water). (Remember, we are 98% identical ....) And
cities form significant barriers to wildlife travel.
Having pure habitat nearby is very educational. I am experimenting
with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard as pure
habitat. It gives me a good opportunity to learn how to cope with
my feelings of curiosity about what is going on there, desire to
"improve" it as habitat, the need for a way to maintain its
pristinity in perpetuity, etc. Creating travel corridors is a major
difficulty. However, recently I have heard that some San Francisco
residents are tearing down their backyard fences in order to make
it easier for wildlife to travel across the city.
Difficulties
____________
What will wildlife and wildlands "managers" do for a living? Not
all wildlife habitat will be closed to humans. They can manage the
___
remainder. For those that will be closed, they can remove all human
____
artifacts and invasive non-native species, restore the area to its
"wild" condition, and educate the public about what they are doing.
Roads, as we discussed, fragment habitat. How can it be prevented?
Probably most major roads should be replaced by rail lines, which
____
are much narrower in relation to their carrying capacity, and
present much less of a barrier to wildlife. For example, the time
between trains is much greater than the interval between motor
vehicles on a road. Besides, we will soon be running out of oil,
and won't be able to justify keeping so many lane miles of roadway
open for the dwindling number of cars and trucks.
Many people may have to move. But compared to wildlife, people can
pretty well take care of themselves. Wildlife, if we are to
preserve them, must be given priority. They cannot protect
____ ______
themselves from us.
"People will not appreciate what they can't see and use". This is
an obvious myth. Many people appreciate and work to protect areas
____
that they may never experience directly. I don't need to visit
every wilderness area in the world, to know that they need to be
_____
protected. I don't need to see every Alameda whipsnake to want to
_____
save the entire species. Why cater to, and hence promote,
selfishness? Besides, we need to protect many areas (e.g.
Antarctica and the bottom of the ocean) long before we are able to
____
bring people there to learn to appreciate them directly. The
________
relationship between the number of visitors, and the degree of
protection given the area, is not linear!
___
We have an instinct to explore; if an area is closed to us, that is
exactly where we want to go! There are many areas of life where we
need to practice restraint, and where we all benefit from it -- for
example, in our relations with our family, friends, and community.
Margulis and Sagan (1986) argue convincingly that cooperation (e.g.
___________
between eukaryotic cells and their symbiotic mitochondria), just as
much as competition, has been responsible for our successful
evolution. If we compete with other species, we will surely "win" -
- and then doom ourselves to extinction, just like a symbiont that
destroys its host. We don't have to indulge all of our "instincts";
in fact, we are better off if we don't!
_____
We still need access to wilderness in order to learn to appreciate
it, but since we aren't closing all wilderness to people, that need
___
can still be satisfied. In fact, all children should be taken to
see wilderness soon after they are born, because it is the only
place they can see how things are supposed to be in this world! If
they grow up around nothing but concrete, then concrete may become
their ideal!
How Pure Habitat Benefits Us
____________________________
It preserves species that are an essential part of our own
ecosystems, and on whom we are dependent for essential (e.g. foods)
or desired (e.g. a variety of foods) products and services. It
_______
provides a source of individuals to repopulate or revitalize
depleted local populations (assuming that connecting wildlife
corridors are maintained).
Knowing that wildlife are safe and healthy gives us a feeling of
safety and security (like the canary in the mine), as well as the
satisfaction we get from cherishing others (satisfying our
"maternal/paternal" instincts?). We must carry a heavy load of
guilt when we learn that our lifestyle is causing the suffering,
death, or even extinction of our fellow Earthlings (e.g. from
clearcutting tropical forests)!
Wildlife, even if we don't utilize it directly, can teach us by
giving us an independent view of reality and examples of different
values (assuming that we listen).
For the sake of the environment, for our own health and happiness,
and for our children, we need to move toward a more sustainable
lifestyle. The primary obstacle is our reliance on technology.
Coincidentally, the primary threat to wildlife is also technology -
____
- e.g. tools that make wildlife habitat more accessible, such as
maps, GPS sensors, satellites, bulldozers, 4-wheel-drive vehicles,
mountain bikes, rafts, climbing equipment, night-vision goggles,
etc. Banning the use of such technologies in order to protect
wildlife can at the same time help us move toward a more
sustainable future.
Perhaps the greatest benefit of all, is distracting us from our
selfish, petty concerns, and giving us something more meaningful to
work on. Remember "We Are the World"? People from all over the
world united to come to the aid of a third party: the world's
starving children. While working together, they were able to forget
their own needs, and focus wholly on rescuing children who were in
trouble. Well, wildlife are in even more trouble! We all (according
____
to E.O. Wilson) instinctively love nature. Why not focus on this
common value, work together to rescue the large proportion of the
world's wildlife that are in serious danger (according to the IUCN,
one fourth of the world's animals are threatened with extinction),
and put aside our relatively petty squabbles -- e.g. those causing
wars all over the world?
Human groups often fight over things so subtle that outsiders have
trouble understanding what all the fuss is about. For example,
Canadians have long been bickering over which language to speak,
while their forests are being clearcut and their water contaminated
with mercury! Language and culture are important, but not in
___
comparison to what wildlife have to endure, including extinction!
Conclusion
__________
The existence of life on the Earth is probably inevitable, given
the laws of chemistry and physics and the range of conditions and
elements available here. However, at the same time, the life of any
given individual is exceedingly fragile. A hair's breadth separates
__________
the living state from the dead. In fact, there is apparently no
difference between living and inanimate matter.
The proof is a seed. Take, for example, one of the seeds that
germinated after being in an Egyptian pyramid for 3000 years. What
was that seed doing for 3000 years? Obviously, nothing! If it did
_______
anything, it would consume energy, and use up its store of
nutrients. Therefore, it was "alive" (viable), but undetectably so.
(Similarly, there are frogs that yearly survive being frozen solid!
Viruses and prions are two other examples of dead matter that
engages in processes usually associated only with being alive.) In
other words, life is simply a process, like the flowing of water,
that can stop and start. (Or perhaps we should say that we are all
dead, but sometimes undergo processes that are usually associated
with, and called, "being alive".) And it also follows that we are
__
essentially indistinguishable from inanimate matter.
As I discussed earlier, we are also essentially indistinguishable
from other organisms. Every lever by which we have attempted to
separate ourselves from other species has, in the end, failed. So
how should we treat them? We have no rational basis for treating
________
them any different from ourselves. We need a place to live that is
__
satisfactory to us, and wildlife need, and deserve, the same.
____
Are we big (generous) enough to give other species what they want
and need, and share the Earth with them? Do we really have a
choice?!
References:
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
__________________________
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random
_____________________________________________
House, 1981.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony
_____________________________
Books, 1991.
Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears. Washington, DC: Island Press,
___________
1992.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
____________
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
______________
LaChapelle, Dolores, Sacred Land Sacred Sex -- Rapture of the Deep.
_____________________________________________
Durango, Colorado: Kivaki Press, c.1988.
Liddle, Michael, Recreation Ecology. Chapman & Hall: London,
__________________
c.1997.
Life on the Edge. A Guide to California's Endangered Natural
____________________________________________________________
Resources: Wildlife. Santa Cruz, California: BioSystem Books, 1994.
_________
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos -- Four Billion Years
_________________________________
of Microbial Evolution. Berkeley, California: University of
______________________
California Press, c. 1986.
Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden
___________________________________
City, NY: Anchor Books, 1984.
Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing
Roads", Earth First!
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
_______________________
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
_____________________________________
California, 1994.
Powell, Jerry A. and Charles L. Hogue, California Insects.
__________________
Berkeley: University of California Press, c. 1979.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal
________________________________________
Rights for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William
__________________________
Kaufmann, Inc., 1973.
Vandeman, Michael J.,
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles/, especially
"Wildlife and the Ecocity" and "'Harmless' Recreation Kills
Wildlife!"
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and
_____________________________________________
the Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
________________________________
"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The
Cenozoic Society, 1994.
Wilkins, Bruce J. and Steven R. Peterson, "Nongame Wildlife", in
Wildlife Conservation: Principles and Practices, Richard D. Teague
_______________________________________________
and Eugene Decker, eds. Washington, D. C.: The Wildlife Society, c.
1979.
Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
_____________________
Harvard University Press, 1992.
Ruger9
wrote:
>
>Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
>
Now THAT'S a sad example of what our education system has become.
Ruger9
Corvus Corvax
>
> I used race to describe who I was talking about. Like this:
>
> For eons, animals burrowed the desert, disturbing the poor
> bacteria. Then the Indians came and damaged the bacteria with the
> hooves of their horses.
Looks to me like you were using simplistic racial stereotypes to describe
whom you were talking about. First person to point out the factual error
here wins a year's supply of jerkey.
CC
tmc
tmc
On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:30:47 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 09:32:41 -0400, "Ken [NY"
penny s
"Corvus Corvax" <corvus...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b202ac08.02042...@posting.google.com...
many of the desert dwellers did not have horses for many years; that was
plains Indians, primarily.
ps
John S. Watson
More like an example of lack of funding for the CA's psychiatric institutions.
JW
P.S. When/if you respond, please remember to remove at least one cross-posted
newsgroup. I always remove my favorite newsgroup, so at least it doesn't
continue there.
Rich Johnson
Horses AFAIK didn't arrive on the plains until the spanish conquerors
arrived.
--
Rich
Enfield NS
Canada
reply to address is backwards
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.On Sun, 28 Apr 2002 18:30:47 GMT, mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman)
.wrote:
.
.
.>
.>Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
.>
.
.
.Now THAT'S a sad example of what our education system has become.
Why? It is interesting that you are afraid to give any details, since
you will be proven wrong.
.Ruger9
Mike Vandeman
.
.mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) writes:
.> . Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
.> .as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
.>
.> BS. Humans are native to AFRICA. Everywhere else, we are a rank
.> newcomer (exotic species).
.Are you trying to say that evolution didn't spread our species (maybe
.starting from Africa) over the whole world?
No, I am saying that one doesn't become a native species the day it
arrives in a new location. It takes time. Otherwise, we wouldn't be
talking about exotic species messing up our ecosystems. They would be
"native" by now.
.Now *that's* an effective point against you. So answer.
BS.
.But think twice before doing so. Don't annoy me with half-gare rants.
.
.David Mann
Spider
> On 25 Apr 2002 10:14:26 -0700, beelz...@hotmail.com (Spider)
> ejaculated:
>
> >Again, I ask you - WTF does race have to do with anything? How does
> >it bear on the subject AT ALL?
>
> I used race to describe who I was talking about. Like this:
>
> For eons, animals burrowed the desert, disturbing the poor
> bacteria. Then the Indians came and damaged the bacteria with the
> hooves of their horses. Next came the white adventurers, prospectors
> and settlers. The whites dug up the desert to build roads and
> railways. Now the bikers have come to enjoy their desert, and are
> being dumped on for no good reason.
Other than the fact that it does cause damage? Is that "no good
reason?" Again, race has NOTHING to do with it. Bringing it up is an
excuse to play "poor white man."
> Ok, now to be politically correct, we will read the same
> paragraph using race-neutral words. And we might as well be
> gender-neutral as well. Mustn't disturb the NOW people. Come to think
> of it, we don't want to get the animal rights people angry so we will
> be species-neutral as well:
What has this to do with bicycling? That's right - nothing. Poor Ken
- picked upon from all sides.
<whiny rant snipped>
> Better? Hey, you got something there. Gosh, I feel like
> holding hands and chanting liberal slogans. Feeeels sooooo gooooood!
Ahhh, good 'ol Ken and his sloganeering. Wow, you are an incredible
hypocrite. Add it to the list of your obvious, public failings.
Spider
Matt
"Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3cc9ef6...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> . So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
> .by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
> .only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
> .Americans) disturb it?
>
> No, of course. But someone WALKING destroys A LOT LESS than a biker,
> who travels SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST & AS FAR as a walker.
gee, what happened to "any compromise is a 100% loss for
wildlife" ? "destroys A LOT LESS" sure sounds like a compromise
to me. Also, a fit runner can "travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST &
AS FAR as a walker." Maybe you should fight to ban running too.
Ken [NY
<penn...@cet.com.invalid> ejaculated:
Right. Then they got horses. Ho hum.
Mike Vandeman
.mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) writes:
.
.> On 29 Apr 2002 10:41:18 +0200, David Mann <d...@ifai.de> wrote:
.> .mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) writes:
.> .> . Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
.> .> .as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
.> .>
.> .> BS. Humans are native to AFRICA. Everywhere else, we are a rank
.> .> newcomer (exotic species).
.> .Are you trying to say that evolution didn't spread our species (maybe
.> .starting from Africa) over the whole world?
.>
.> No, I am saying that one doesn't become a native species the day it
.> arrives in a new location. It takes time. Otherwise, we wouldn't be
.> talking about exotic species messing up our ecosystems. They would be
.> "native" by now.
.A species becomes native in an ecosystem if it is able to survive. Thus,
.we are a native species. We can spread further, and we do. I agree with
.you that this leads to problems. But that's evolution.
.
.Considering your fight against MTBing: Mountain Biking is one of the
.least problems we have right now. Don't you think you just waste your
.energy on that? I mean, what about air pollution? Humans destroying
."habitats" in a big-spender way (clearcuts, oil fields, cities)? I see
.your point, but you fight a losing battle. You should try to update your
.targets, IMHO.
There are plenty of people working on all those other problems. You
just don't want people to hear the truth about mountain biking! 8
million mountain bikers do an ENORMOUS amount of damage, ripping up
miles and miles of wildlife habitat every weekend.
.David
Don Libby
>
> On 30 Apr 2002 12:55:55 +0200, David Mann <d...@ifai.de> wrote:
> .Considering your fight against MTBing: Mountain Biking is one of the
> .least problems we have right now. Don't you think you just waste your
> .energy on that? I mean, what about air pollution? Humans destroying
> ."habitats" in a big-spender way (clearcuts, oil fields, cities)? I see
> .your point, but you fight a losing battle. You should try to update your
> .targets, IMHO.
>
> There are plenty of people working on all those other problems. You
> just don't want people to hear the truth about mountain biking! 8
> million mountain bikers do an ENORMOUS amount of damage, ripping up
> miles and miles of wildlife habitat every weekend.
MV, are you in a position to provide statistics on ecologcial
damage estimates for mtn. biking vs. motorized off-road vehicles?
If so, please do.
-dl
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cc9ef6...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> . So all those generations of Indians were wrecking the desert
.> .by disturbing the bacteria crust, thereby destroying it? Or does it
.> .only happen when mountain bikes (ridden by destructive white
.> .Americans) disturb it?
.>
.> No, of course. But someone WALKING destroys A LOT LESS than a biker,
.> who travels SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST & AS FAR as a walker.
.
.gee, what happened to "any compromise is a 100% loss for
.wildlife" ? "destroys A LOT LESS" sure sounds like a compromise
.to me. Also, a fit runner can "travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST &
.AS FAR as a walker." Maybe you should fight to ban running too.
Mountain biking first. It is the most destructive non-motorized sport.
Chris McMartin
> .gee, what happened to "any compromise is a 100% loss for
> .wildlife" ? "destroys A LOT LESS" sure sounds like a compromise
> .to me. Also, a fit runner can "travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST &
> .AS FAR as a walker." Maybe you should fight to ban running too.
>
> Mountain biking first. It is the most destructive non-motorized sport.
My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
Mike Vandeman
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd2a5bc...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> On Fri, 03 May 2002 04:10:26 GMT, "CycleJay" <cycl...@earthlink.net>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .Humans are indigenous to the whole planet..
.> .Not just Africa..
.>
.> BS. For example, they have been in North America only about 12,000
.> years.
.>
.> .Evolution put people everywhere..
.>
.> Nonsense. Evolution doesn't "do" things.
.>
.> and then nature took its course,
.> .and spread us around more..
.> .
.> .If all humans were only native to Africa, we'd all look like africans,
.> .but we don't..
.>
.> Nonsense. Not all Africans look alike, in case you haven't noticed.
.>
.> .CJ
.
.This whole argument about the "exotic" human species ruining the ecosystem
.is stupid. Are you trying to say that, because humans are indigenous to
.Africa, they are somehow more a part of the ecosystem there than in other
.areas of the globe?
Biologically, yes!
Are you trying to say that, because humans are
.indigenous to Africa, then by definition they do not, and cannot, damage the
.ecosystem there?
No, but the African wildlife has had at leasr several million years
LONGER than other areas of the globe to learn how to deal with us.
.You environmentalists are so preoccupied in preserving a snapshot of the
.ecosystem as you currently see it that you fail to notice that nature does
.not such things.
.If we lived 5000 years ago, when the Sahara was a lush forest, I would have
.liked to see your reaction to that ecosystem's transformation (i.e.
.destruction) into the lush desert we have today.
I never said humans aren't destructive. We obviously ARE.
.josh
For the exlanation, see:
July 1, 2000
Dr. Jane Goodall
Jane Goodall Institute
P.O. Box 727
Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Re: The Truth about Chimps
Dear Dr. Goodall:
Thank you for your reply. You are one of my heroes, and I
treasure my contact with you, both in person (at the "for the Love of
Nature" conference in Findhorn, Scotland last year) and through your
writings.
Of all people in the world, you can best deliver this message.
You have the ear of the world. You are respected and loved, worldwide.
Therefore it is extremely important that you tell the truth about the
chimps and other wildlife: they don't want us around! They "told" you
that clearly and unequivocally when you first contacted them, as did
the orangutans to Birute Galdikas, and the gorillas to Dian Fossey.
The chimps desperately need you to deliver their message to the rest
of humanity. Although the message is impossible to miss, most humans
ignore it.
This is perhaps a bitter pill, but one that the world urgently
needs to take. With our population increasing rapidly, it is more
important than ever to give wildlife what they want, which is also,
therefore, what they need: freedom from the pressure, irritation,
infection with diseases, and outright danger of the presence of
humans. It is utterly inexcusable that we continue extending our
hegemony into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other
defenseless planets as well.
This is a tall order? Very well, then it is a tall order. But
I do not see why we shouldn't aim for what is needed, instead of
pretending that less is adequate. Do you?
Sincerely yours,
Michael J. Vandeman,
Ph.D.
P.S. You mentioned that humans are part of the animal kingdom, as
though that could excuse our behavior. That we are a part of the
animal kingdom is undeniable, but trivial -- it has no moral or
behavioral implications, like the fact that we are made of atoms. The
real question is what part? We are obviously the most destructive
part!
What makes a species a native? A native species is basically one that
has been in a given location for a long time. However, every species
is a newcomer at some time, so how long does it take to become a
"native"? I think that the most sensible answer is: the length of time
that it takes the other species in that ecosystem to evolve to adapt
to it. That (successful mutations) happens on the evolutionary time
scale, hence on the order of millions of years. That would make humans
native only to Africa, and everywhere else an exotic species
(newcomer). That is not a value judgement, merely a biological
description of our place in the ecosystem.
However, even in Africa, the rate at which human behavior changes
implies that the only organisms that can really keep up with us are
viruses and bacteria. I think that this implies that we should act as
if we are an exotic species: i.e., with great restraint! We are simply
too powerful a force to be able to coexist with any other species.
There are a few that have been able to coexist with us to some degree,
but in general, we are a bull in their china closet (or, as I like to
say, the ants at every other species's picnic).
To see the effects of humans on wildlife, it is not very useful to
look at the "steady-state" situation that obtains after long
cohabitation. The most definitive test is to look at what happens when
humans first arrive at a given location. In every case, we have
decimated the local species (e.g. see The End of Evolution, by Peter
Ward). I think it is time to stop pining for a romantic past that
never existed (except in the Old Testament of the Bible), face the
reality, as unpleasant as that might be, and start listening to what
the wildlife are really telling us. If anyone can do that, I think it
is you! (See, I have you on a pedestal -- or at least a stump! J )
It is certainly amazing and inspiring to learn about wildlife, but we
have placed artificial limits on that knowledge, so that the
unpleasant, "inconvenient" facts are filtered out (even by scientists,
who should know better -- or have I idealized them too much?).
As you say, "an experience of wilderness changes people for ever".
Yes, sometimes, but not always in a positive way. It could just as
easily open their eyes to more resources to exploit. It is not
guaranteed to make them an environmentalist or deep ecologist, and we
shouldn't assume that it does! Sure, it is necessary to experience
wilderness, in order to appreciate it. But that needn't be often, nor
need it be pristine wilderness. There is a degree of wildness on every
leaf!
By the way, I think that children grow up loving the type of
surroundings they experience when young. If they grow up on concrete,
they will tend to love concrete. So I think that every time a child
is born, we should execute a ceremony: they should first be introduced
to their mother, then to their father, and then taken to see some
wilderness. Where else can they learn the way the world is supposed to
be? Of course, they should also be taught to respect and stay out of
that wilderness, as much as possible.
References:
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos -- Four Billion Years of
Microbial Evolution. Berkeley, California: University of California
Press, c. 1986.
Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books, 1984.
Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
Earth First!
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California, 1994.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights
for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc.,
1973.
Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3.htm and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.htm.
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
Society, 1994.
Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1992.
Mike Vandeman
witherspoon) wrote:
.Folks, MTBers I mean, you won't get anywhere by trying to reason with
.extremist radical environmentalists such as these who work on a daily
.basis to restrict YOUR access to public lands and banish you
Pure BS. I only want to ban BIKES, not BIKERS. DUH! I know that's hard
for your feeble minds to comprehend. Or rather, you understand, but
you continue to lie because you can't help it!
from
.places where you like to do what you like to do, whether it be by MTB,
.by foot, kayak, dirt bike, jeep, atv or car. Your best bet is to get
.involved, get active and support the various groups who are working
.hard to keep access open to you and your recreational interest. Take
.some time and learn about, join and support the following groups who
.are working as tirelessly they are to keep access open:
.
.sharetrails.org
.treadlightly.org
.blueribbon.org
.International Mountain Bike Association http://www.imba.com/
.check their site for a list of local clubs for you to join
.http://www.imba.com/contacts/near_you/clubs.html
.
.I might also suggest reading the following article:
.
.http://www.reason.com/0205/fe.rb.green.shtml
.
.and buying the book that radical greens don't want you to read because
.they're dying to keep scaring the shit out of you so they keep you in
.check and on your pavement:
.
.The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
.by Bjorn Lomborg
.
.http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0521010683/ref%3Dnosim/reasonmagazineA/103-4353358-3231802
That's pure BS.
.
.mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote in message news:<3cd2a5bc...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
.> On Fri, 03 May 2002 04:10:26 GMT, "CycleJay" <cycl...@earthlink.net>
.> wrote:
.>
.> .Humans are indigenous to the whole planet..
.> .Not just Africa..
.>
.> BS. For example, they have been in North America only about 12,000
.> years.
.>
.> .Evolution put people everywhere..
.>
.> Nonsense. Evolution doesn't "do" things.
.>
.> and then nature took its course,
.> .and spread us around more..
.> .
.> .If all humans were only native to Africa, we'd all look like africans,
.> .but we don't..
.>
.> Nonsense. Not all Africans look alike, in case you haven't noticed.
.>
.> .CJ
.> .
.> .
.> ."David Mann" <d...@ifai.de> wrote in message news:d6wiq4...@ifai.de...
.> .>
.> .> mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) writes:
.> .> > . Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
.> .> > .as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
.> .> >
.> .> > BS. Humans are native to AFRICA. Everywhere else, we are a rank
.> .> > newcomer (exotic species).
.> .> Are you trying to say that evolution didn't spread our species (maybe
.> .> starting from Africa) over the whole world?
.> .>
.> .> Now *that's* an effective point against you. So answer.
.> .>
.> .> But think twice before doing so. Don't annoy me with half-gare rants.
.> .>
.> .> David Mann
.> .>
.> .
.> .
.>
.> ===
.> 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
wrote:
.Mike Vandeman wrote:
.>
.> On 30 Apr 2002 12:55:55 +0200, David Mann <d...@ifai.de> wrote:
.> .Considering your fight against MTBing: Mountain Biking is one of the
.> .least problems we have right now. Don't you think you just waste your
.> .energy on that? I mean, what about air pollution? Humans destroying
.> ."habitats" in a big-spender way (clearcuts, oil fields, cities)? I see
.> .your point, but you fight a losing battle. You should try to update your
.> .targets, IMHO.
.>
.> There are plenty of people working on all those other problems. You
.> just don't want people to hear the truth about mountain biking! 8
.> million mountain bikers do an ENORMOUS amount of damage, ripping up
.> miles and miles of wildlife habitat every weekend.
.
.MV, are you in a position to provide statistics on ecologcial
.damage estimates for mtn. biking vs. motorized off-road vehicles?
.
.If so, please do.
See http://www.wildlandscpr.org. But why do you care? The answer is
obvious.
.-dl
Mike Vandeman
<newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd3e54...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> .gee, what happened to "any compromise is a 100% loss for
.> .wildlife" ? "destroys A LOT LESS" sure sounds like a compromise
.> .to me. Also, a fit runner can "travel SEVERAL TIMES AS FAST &
.> .AS FAR as a walker." Maybe you should fight to ban running too.
.>
.> Mountain biking first. It is the most destructive non-motorized sport.
.
.My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
Creating golf courses is not the same as the sport. DUH!
Chris McMartin
> .> Mountain biking first. It is the most destructive non-motorized sport.
> .
> .My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
>
> Creating golf courses is not the same as the sport. DUH!
So if I didn't CREATE the mountain bike trail, I can ride it with a clear
conscience? Interesting!
Mike Vandeman
<newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd4a010...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> .> Mountain biking first. It is the most destructive non-motorized sport.
.> .
.> .My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
.>
.> Creating golf courses is not the same as the sport. DUH!
.
.So if I didn't CREATE the mountain bike trail, I can ride it with a clear
.conscience? Interesting!
You guys don't even HAVE a conscience, much less a "clear" one.
Chris McMartin
> .> .My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
> .>
> .> Creating golf courses is not the same as the sport. DUH!
> .
> .So if I didn't CREATE the mountain bike trail, I can ride it with a clear
> .conscience? Interesting!
>
> You guys don't even HAVE a conscience, much less a "clear" one.
Your evasion of the question, in addition to previous posts where you imply
living in a habitat-eliminating house is OK because YOU didn't build it, is
taken as agreement with me.
Mike Vandeman
<newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd5e0ac...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> .> .My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
.> .>
.> .> Creating golf courses is not the same as the sport. DUH!
.> .
.> .So if I didn't CREATE the mountain bike trail, I can ride it with a clear
.> .conscience? Interesting!
.>
.> You guys don't even HAVE a conscience, much less a "clear" one.
.
.Your evasion of the question, in addition to previous posts where you imply
.living in a habitat-eliminating house is OK because YOU didn't build it, is
.taken as agreement with me.
Wrong! Everyone has to live in a building, but mountain biking is
TOTALLY unnecessary. Banning bikes greatly reducec impacts on natural
areas. If you live in a house, how can you complain about someone else
living in a house, HYPOCRITE?????
Shaun Rimmer
Mike Vandeman <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3cd3f617...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> For the exlanation, see:
>
> July 1, 2000
> Dr. Jane Goodall
> Jane Goodall Institute
> P.O. Box 727
> Dar es Salaam
> Tanzania
>
> Re: The Truth about Chimps
>
> Dear Dr. Goodall:
>
> Thank you for your reply. You are one of my heroes, and I
> treasure my contact with you, both in person (at the "for the Love of
> Nature" conference in Findhorn, Scotland last year) and through your
> writings.
Oh, you mean this Findhorn?:
---------------------------------------------------------
www.beyondboundaries.org/findhorn.html with its teaser:
"... dismissed? "Perhaps it was their stroppy attitudes," she
muses. That would be a neat, non-loopy revision of Findhorn
history. In fact, it was the spaceships. ..." -17k - Cached -
Similar pages
"Based on well-documented research, this book
discloses "cult behavior" within the Findhorn Foundation, an
internationally-renowned New Age community in Scotland. This
in-depth study consists of extensive research on social science
and the New Age movement in general, documents presented by former
members, and local media reports from recent years. The author
himself is a former member of the Foundation who pursued his
investigation while residing in the neighborhood of the community
for five years."
Social problems and occult tendencies: SIMPOS information
... tendencies. NEW: Neo-Tech; Findhorn; Ramtha; satanism;
Adi Da; Eckankar. What's New on our pages. ...
Description: AMORC, Anthroposophy, Asatru, Astrology, Alice
Bailey,
Castaneda, Eckankar, Findhorn, Gurdjieff, Heaven's...
Category: Society > Religion and Spirituality > Opposing Views >
Esoteric and Occult
www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Lucifer's Realm - Satanism - Cult Catalog Of The "Other" Jesus ...
CULT CATALOG OF THE "OTHER" JESUS. Back To Main Satanism Page. ...
Findhorn Foundation
University of Light - Leaders: Peter and Eileen Caddy. "The Devic
(Deva is a ...
home.bip.net/d.scot/Satanism/Doc6.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar
pages
Social problems and occult tendencies: SIMPOS information
... tendencies. NEW: Neo-Tech; Findhorn; Ramtha; satanism;
Adi Da; Eckankar. What's New on our pages. ...
Description: AMORC, Anthroposophy, Asatru, Astrology, Alice
Bailey, Castaneda, Eckankar, Findhorn, Gurdjieff, Heaven's...
Category: Society > Religion and Spirituality > Opposing Views >
Esoteric and Occult
www.stelling.nl/simpos/simpoeng.htm - 21k - Cached - Similar pages
Lucifer's Realm - Satanism - Cult Catalog Of The "Other" Jesus
... CULT CATALOG OF THE "OTHER" JESUS. Back To Main Satanism Page.
... Findhorn Foundation
University of Light - Leaders: Peter and Eileen Caddy. "The Devic
(Deva is a ...
home.bip.net/d.scot/Satanism/Doc6.htm - 32k - Cached - Similar
pages
NEW AGE SPIRITUALITY
... Small groups, such as the Findhorn Community in Inverness and
the Wrekin ... do not differentiate
among the Occult, Satanism, Wicca, other Neopagan religions. Many
Satanism and the New World Order by Scott Thompson, Executive
Intelligence Review, www.LaRouchePub.com had this to say about
Findhorn: "Findhorn - This is the sacred community of the New Age
movement, based in Great Britain. Bailey disciple David Spangler,
another explicit Luciferian, became co-director of the Findhorn
Foundation, when he formed the Lorian Association. He sits on the
boards of directors of Planetary Citizens, the secretariat of
Planetary Initiative for the World We Choose (launched at the
Cathedral of St. John in 1982), and is a contributing editor to
New Age Magazine. "
Another www.LaRouchePub.com page,
http://www.econcrisis.homestead.com/The_REAL_History_of_Satanism.h
tml this time bylined, Lyndon LaRouche, had this to say:
"Anglo-American Satanists
The best-organized Satanist forces operating presently inside the
United States include the following prominent organizations:
"THE LUCIS TRUST:
"This is the leading, putatively respectable Britain-based Satan
cult (it worships Lucifer). The Lucis Trust, which runs the only
religious chapel at the New York United Nations headquarters, The
Temple of Understanding, was originaly founded as the Lucifer
Trust, in London, in 1923. The Lucis Trust associated with the UNO
is the New York affiliate of the British organization. The name
was changed from Lucifer Trust, to Lucis Trust, to make the nature
of the organization less conspicuous.
The Lucis Trust's leading sponsors include the following prominent
figures: Henry Clausen, Supreme Grand Commander of the Supreme
Council, 33rd Degree, Southern District Scottish Rite, Freemasons,
Norman Cousins' John D. Rockefeller IV' The Rockefeller
Foundation, The Marshall Field family, Robert McNamara..."
"In Communion with Pan Now I think that we are prepared to hear a
"Cosmic Consciousness Testimony" that comes closer to what is REALLY
happening in the
New Age Community.
It happened at Findhorn, which is a New Age Community located in
Scotland. Founded in 1962 by Peter and Eileen Caddy- its
inhabitants revere and commune with the "Nature Spirits" and even
with the local flowers and plants that are on the grounds! They
believe in "communicating with Nature" literally! (as do others in
the New Age circles)
The Nature Spirits are said to make themselves visible to some of
the people who live at Findhorn. These Spirits (elves, fairies,
and gnomes) are reported to be responsible for helping the
inhabitants there to grow gigantic vegetables and other plants.
The message of Findhorn is that if mankind will once again have
reverence for Nature and the Nature Spirits, then they will
prosper.
Paul Hawken, a resident at Findhorn New Age Community, gives a
testimony in his book The Magic of Findhorn concerning his visit
there and what happened to him. Mr. Hawken had a very unusual
"Cosmic Consciousness" experience at Findhorn! He describes the
account of what took place for us:
"I had the odd feeling that something was going to happen. I was
sitting in the light of the afternoon sun (at Findhorn's Garden)
then suddenly it happened. I saw something moving from the corner
of my eye, I looked and saw a figure dancing around a tree. I
could see shaggy legs and cloven hooves, pointed chin and ears,
and two little horns on his forehead.
He told me he lived in the Garden, and that his work was to help
the growth of the trees. He went on to say that the Nature Spirits
had lost interest in humans, since they have been made to feel
that they are neither believed in nor wanted. He thought that men
were foolish to think that they could do without the Nature
Spirits. He told me to call him when I returned and that he would
come.
Then I realized that I was not alone (again). A figure was
walking beside me. It was a faun radiating a tremendous sort of
power, (He said) 'Do you know who I am?' It suddenly hit me who
this 'faun' was. 'Yes, I know who you are.'
Then you ought to be afraid (he said). Your word 'panic' comes
from the fear my presence causes.' (the word 'Pan'). (He said) 'Do
you believe in my subjects? (the Nature Spirits)' 'Do you love
me?' (He said) 'You know of course that I am the Devil? Did not
the early Church take me as a model for the Devil? Look at my
cloven hooves, my shaggy legs, and the horns on my forehead. The
Church turned all pagan gods and spirits into devils, fiends, and
imps. The ancient gods are not necessarily devils'.
(He said) 'All human beings are afraid of me. Did not the early
Christian Church make me a model for the Devil?' That is why he is
feared-because of the image projected onto him. This image must be
lifted off him so that his nature may be revealed. There he was,
holding them (His musical panpipes) between his hands. He began to
play a curious melody.
Well, the next meeting (with Pan) was early in May in the
Hermit's cell. I became aware of a large figure lying on the
ground. It appeared to be a monk in a brown habit with the hood
pulled over the head so that the features were concealed. As I
watched he raised his hands and rolled back the hood. It was Pan.
He smiled and said: 'I am the servant of the Almighty God, and I
and my subjects are willing to come to the aid of mankind in spite
of the way he has treated us and abused Nature, if he affirms his
belief in us and asks for our help.' It became apparent that what
was happening was a sort of reconciliation between the Nature
Kingdom and man."-The Magic of Findhorn, Paul Hawken, pg. 205-219
(A few snipets.
-----------------------------------------------
> Of all people in the world, you can best deliver this message.
> You have the ear of the world. You are respected and loved, worldwide.
> Therefore it is extremely important that you tell the truth about the
> chimps and other wildlife: they don't want us around! They "told" you
> that clearly and unequivocally when you first contacted them, as did
> the orangutans to Birute Galdikas, and the gorillas to Dian Fossey.
> The chimps desperately need you to deliver their message to the rest
> of humanity. Although the message is impossible to miss, most humans
> ignore it.
So, you have on a peddestal, some 'crazed new-aged luna-chick' that speaks
with chimps.
And the point you were trying to back up was?
Chris Townsend
<sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
>
>So, you have on a peddestal, some 'crazed new-aged luna-chick' that speaks
>with chimps.
>
>And the point you were trying to back up was?
>
years) but your ignorance about Jane Goodall suggests that you are on a
par with him.
Chris Townsend
Garbage about Findhorn snipped.
Some of the people at Findhorn may have some unusual ideas and beliefs
but the description in the stuff you posted smacks of Christian
fundamentalism and intolerance that brands anything they disapprove of
as Satantic. With reference to Findhorn this stuff is laughable.
Matt
> On 3 May 2002 11:21:33 -0700, joewith...@yahoo.com (joe
> witherspoon) wrote:
>
> .Folks, MTBers I mean, you won't get anywhere by trying to reason with
> .extremist radical environmentalists such as these who work on a daily
> .basis to restrict YOUR access to public lands and banish you
>
> Pure BS. I only want to ban BIKES, not BIKERS. DUH! I know that's hard
> for your feeble minds to comprehend. Or rather, you understand, but
> you continue to lie because you can't help it!
But Mike, you DO want to ban EVERYBODY (even hikers)
as you clearly admit in the below quoted post:
-------- snip ---------
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3ccccd49...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> On 27 Apr 2002 23:37:07 -0700, gorilli...@yahoo.com (sasquatch)
.> wrote:
.> .Management plans for parks and reserves need updated and need to
.> .address the changing uses that us locust, whether it be on a Mt Bike
.> .or throngs of hikers and campers or rock climbers, are using and
.> .assess it's impacts on the wildlife and plant life.
.>
.> Banning bikes & horses is the best way to minimize damage. And it
.> doesn't exclude anyone!
.
.Please explain why you do not also support banning ALL
.hiking.
I DO! DUH! Haven't you seen my web site????
Eric Lee Green
> On Mon, 06 May 2002 11:42:12 GMT, "Chris McMartin"
><newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
> .Your evasion of the question, in addition to previous posts where you imply
> .living in a habitat-eliminating house is OK because YOU didn't build it, is
> .taken as agreement with me.
>
> Wrong! Everyone has to live in a building, but mountain biking is
But you live in a house, right? You contribute to the suburban sprawl
that causes habit loss, right? Unless you live in an inner-city highrise
or apartment building, you're part of the PRIMARY reason for habit
loss -- sprawl! To whine about mountain bikes when you participate
in the primary reason for habitat loss is indeed hypocrisy.
--
Eric Lee Green er...@badtux.org http://badtux.org/eric
GnuPG public key at http://badtux.org/eric/eric.gpg
BadTux News Links http://badtux.org
Chris McMartin
> Wrong! Everyone has to live in a building,
Wrong!
>If you live in a house, how can you complain about someone else
> living in a house, HYPOCRITE?????
Because my complaint is not about living in houses--My complaint is that you
think you're somehow better than others because of certain behaviors or lack
thereof, while ignoring other factors which make you no better than the
people you deride. I complain that you live in a house ONLY because of your
elitist and hypocritical stance towards others. You complain about how
humans are destroying the earth, yet you continue to exist. THAT is
hypocritical.
Paul M Davis
In a free society persons have a recognized right to "life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness", just as much as you have a right to have a roof over
your head and the right to shop in grocery stores.
No, mountain biking is not "totally unnecessary" in that medical studies
have established that at least 35 minutes of intense aerobic exercise three
times a week creates a significant increase in aerobic capacity, blood
pressure regulation, glycogen levels and numerous other health benefits.
Bicycling, along with running, swimming and walking is one of the most
commonly recommended means by which human health can be maintained and
increased. It is an activity that many reasonable persons find to be
enjoyable. Riding off of heavily trafficked streets increases safety and
generally increases the quality of the experience. Trail riding is a
legitimate active recreation activity. The correct societal approach is to
provide a place for destructive activities where they will have the least
degree of negative environmental impact. That might mean intentionally
developing a trail system to focus the destruction on a specified pathway
that can be repaired and maintained as necessary and restricting traffic to
off-trail areas. It might mean prohibiting bicycles from specific sensitive
areas. A complete ban of all off-road cycling is not legally or socially
sustainable.
Paul M Davis
"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GlkB0mJ4...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
How does compare Luciferians with Satanists smack of Christian
Fundamentalism? I would think that the correlation would be obvious.
Chris Townsend
Paul M Davis <pm...@hotmail.com> writes
What correlation? The main site referenced in the post on Findhorn also
attacks a wide range of groups and people from Hari Krishna to Uri
Geller. Another is the work of Lyndon LaRoche.
I've never heard of Luciferians before but they have nothing to do with
Findhorn - unless you interpret any none Christian beliefs as Satanic.
Paul M Davis
There is plenty to attack about Hari Krishna, Uri Geller and Luciferians
without being a Fundamentalist. In fact, Fundamentalism is a distinctly
American phenomena and the web site was developed in the Netherlands. The
site seems to be reasonably well researched, and yes, New Age (as the term
was coined by Marilyn Fergison, et al) is expressly satanic from a Christian
theological perspective. The site is simply an objective analysis of
satanic New Age movements, and therefore performs a public service to the
naive (such as those who have not even heard of Luciferians). One of the
cults mentioned is Heaven's Gate, which resulted in the suicide deaths of
some 37 or so members. There is nothing "laughable" about cultic behaviors
at all.
Shaun Rimmer
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:KFlCsKJ+...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
Heheh, sorry if that 'got your goat', so to speak - I was merely stirring
the pot. I freely admit that I know nothing more about JG than Mike posted.
My point was (and is), if you were trying to back up a scientific,
ecological argument against mountain biking, would you quote a letter where
you say of the person you wrote to: "They [chimps] "told" you that [they
didn't want humans around] clearly and unequivocally when you first
contacted them." ?
I also found his dropping of the name "Findhorn", into the equation (re: the
conference), amusing.
Someone I have been speaking with recently was there "at the inception" and
offered a little insight. The info I posted was from google searches only
(searched by another, not me), and reflects the controversy, as well as the
lack of scientific respect, that surrounds the inner core of Findhorn.
Again, his choice of backup when intending to make a credible argument, was
ridiculous.
Oh, and the _rest_ of the reason I posted what I did, in the way I did, was
for pure unadulterated 'shit-slinging' purposes. If some of it stuck too
close to home for your own comfort, then, well, I could not care less.
So, either take my post to MV's tripe in the spirit it was intended, or not.
Call me bad names, or not. Go into the woods and hold conversations with
chimps, elves and sprites if you so desire. It won't rock my boat.
It is a reasonably free world when it comes to personal expression, and
likewise (more so) when it comes down to personal interpretation of
another's expression.
Oh, and: ',;-P``````
Have a nice day ',;~}
Shaun aRe asks: What the hell is a 'Jane Goodall', an American soap actress?
P.s. Where has all the fun of the world gone?
--
My conscience says I shouldn't but I do anyway and just don't tell anyone.
Shaun Rimmer
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:GlkB0mJ4...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ab66o5$pnv$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >
> >Oh, you mean this Findhorn?:
>
> Garbage about Findhorn snipped.
Snip away - it's still there ',;~}
> Some of the people at Findhorn may have some unusual ideas and beliefs
(!!!! Heheheh........)
> but the description in the stuff you posted smacks of Christian
> fundamentalism and intolerance that brands anything they disapprove of
> as Satantic.
Not bloody likely. A lot of what I saw was written by people from within the
Findhorn org. What I posted was a random collection of search results. If
you are that interested, do yourself a favour, and take an in depth look at
the whole spread of information that is out there re. Findhorn.
> With reference to Findhorn this stuff is laughable.
Reference to Findhorn is laughable stuff ',;~}
Ecological ideals, socio-ecological experiments etc. are all well and good
in my book. Preaching communion with elves and "nature spirits" as a way to
protect and heal the delicate ecological infrastructures of this planet?
Anyhow, I'm off to involve my self in something more frivolous and fun -
feel free to waste your time trying to insult me if you don't like what I
posted - it's your time to waste.
Shaun aRe - "Seriously! Heheheheeeee! " ',;~}
--
Usenet curtains for privacy.
Shaun Rimmer
Paul M Davis <pm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:CKJB8.181$Yi6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Ah, someone who bothered to actually read and dig past the personal slants
within the information and get to some of the meat ',;~}
Shaun aRe
--
Usenet to catch a clue.
Chris Townsend
This is typical fundamentalist intolerance. Painting people as satanic
when they have nothing to do with satan is typical of those who would
suppress all other viewpoints. New Age thinking, of which I am not an
adherent, has nothing to do with satanism, a spurious set of beliefs
invented by Christians in order to persecute non believers (and adopted
by some credulous fools as if it actually existed).
>The site is simply an objective analysis of
>satanic New Age movements, and therefore performs a public service to the
>naive (such as those who have not even heard of Luciferians). One of the
>cults mentioned is Heaven's Gate, which resulted in the suicide deaths of
>some 37 or so members. There is nothing "laughable" about cultic behaviors
>at all.
There isn't but lumping together all those groups and individuals as
cults actually makes it harder to single out the really dangerous
movements like Heaven's Gate. If they are all the same then they could
all be fairly harmless.
Chris Townsend
>
>
>Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:KFlCsKJ+...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <ab66o5$pnv$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
>> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >So, you have on a peddestal, some 'crazed new-aged luna-chick' that
>speaks
>> >with chimps.
>> >
>> >And the point you were trying to back up was?
>> >
>> I hold no brief for Mike Vandeman (whose posts I haven't read for many
>> years) but your ignorance about Jane Goodall suggests that you are on a
>> par with him.
>
>Heheh, sorry if that 'got your goat', so to speak - I was merely stirring
>the pot. I freely admit that I know nothing more about JG than Mike posted.
That was obvious.
>My point was (and is), if you were trying to back up a scientific,
>ecological argument against mountain biking, would you quote a letter where
>you say of the person you wrote to: "They [chimps] "told" you that [they
>didn't want humans around] clearly and unequivocally when you first
>contacted them." ?
MV doesn't have a scientific ecological argument against mountain
biking. He can't argue scientifically or logically either. As I said, I
hold no brief for anything he says.
A scientific ecological argument against mountain biking per se is
impossible anyway. In certain sensitive areas perhaps, in general no.
>
>I also found his dropping of the name "Findhorn", into the equation (re: the
>conference), amusing.
>
>Someone I have been speaking with recently was there "at the inception" and
>offered a little insight. The info I posted was from google searches only
>(searched by another, not me), and reflects the controversy, as well as the
>lack of scientific respect, that surrounds the inner core of Findhorn.
It's certainly not a scientific institution. There have been many
controversies recently and some people leaving. I'm not involved in the
community and never have been but I'm only 20 miles away and they have a
good shop and cafe and are on the way to a good beach so I do visit it
occasionally.
>
>Again, his choice of backup when intending to make a credible argument, was
>ridiculous.
Everything about MV's "arguments" is ridiculous.
>
>Oh, and the _rest_ of the reason I posted what I did, in the way I did, was
>for pure unadulterated 'shit-slinging' purposes. If some of it stuck too
>close to home for your own comfort, then, well, I could not care less.
I found your post entertaining - full or rubbish but entertaining. I
just thought I'd point out that being referred to by MV doesn't
automatically damn anyone.
>
>So, either take my post to MV's tripe in the spirit it was intended, or not.
>Call me bad names, or not. Go into the woods and hold conversations with
>chimps, elves and sprites if you so desire. It won't rock my boat.
Ha! I view such "conversations" as naive and deluded at best. But I
don't think they are harmful and certainly not Satanic. And some of the
things Findhorn does are valuable.
>
Chris Townsend
>
>
>Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:GlkB0mJ4...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <ab66o5$pnv$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
>> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Oh, you mean this Findhorn?:
>>
>> Garbage about Findhorn snipped.
>
>Snip away - it's still there ',;~}
Of course, but there seemed no need to repeat it all.
>
>> Some of the people at Findhorn may have some unusual ideas and beliefs
>
>(!!!! Heheheh........)
>
>> but the description in the stuff you posted smacks of Christian
>> fundamentalism and intolerance that brands anything they disapprove of
>> as Satantic.
>
>Not bloody likely. A lot of what I saw was written by people from within the
>Findhorn org. What I posted was a random collection of search results. If
>you are that interested, do yourself a favour, and take an in depth look at
>the whole spread of information that is out there re. Findhorn.
I have. It's a mishmash of realistic sounding claims, clear sour grapes,
internal politics and confused thinking. How much of it is true I have
no idea but you can find similar stuff on just about any organisation -
religious, political, recreational or whatever.
>
>> With reference to Findhorn this stuff is laughable.
>
>Reference to Findhorn is laughable stuff ',;~}
>
>Ecological ideals, socio-ecological experiments etc. are all well and good
>in my book. Preaching communion with elves and "nature spirits" as a way to
>protect and heal the delicate ecological infrastructures of this planet?
Pointless and naive. But some good groups have come out of Findhorn such
as Trees for Life, who work for the restoration of the Caledonian Forest
and do many scientific studies. They have credibility with Forest
Enterprise, the RSPB, many other bodies and some private landowners.
>
>Anyhow, I'm off to involve my self in something more frivolous and fun -
>feel free to waste your time trying to insult me if you don't like what I
>posted - it's your time to waste.
There's something more frivolous than Usenet? (Fun yes).
Shaun Rimmer
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:23ttgECc...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ab81hr$dhk$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
> >> >So, you have on a peddestal, some 'crazed new-aged luna-chick' that
> >speaks
> >> >with chimps.
> >> >
> >> >And the point you were trying to back up was?
> >> >
> >> I hold no brief for Mike Vandeman (whose posts I haven't read for many
> >> years) but your ignorance about Jane Goodall suggests that you are on a
> >> par with him.
> >
> >Heheh, sorry if that 'got your goat', so to speak - I was merely stirring
> >the pot. I freely admit that I know nothing more about JG than Mike
posted.
>
> That was obvious.
Nor do I care that I didn't - that wasn't the point of my posting (which
should have been obvious).
> >My point was (and is), if you were trying to back up a scientific,
> >ecological argument against mountain biking, would you quote a letter
where
> >you say of the person you wrote to: "They [chimps] "told" you that [they
> >didn't want humans around] clearly and unequivocally when you first
> >contacted them." ?
>
> MV doesn't have a scientific ecological argument against mountain
> biking. He can't argue scientifically or logically either.
_Exactly!_ And that was my point - he couldn't argue his way out of a paper
bag. I like to throw shit at him ocasionaly (when bored). If he gets rankled
by it, I can have myself a cheap and shallow laugh about the fact.
We have to find our fun somewhere.
> As I said, I
> hold no brief for anything he says.
>
> A scientific ecological argument against mountain biking per se is
> impossible anyway. In certain sensitive areas perhaps, in general no.
> >
> >I also found his dropping of the name "Findhorn", into the equation (re:
the
> >conference), amusing.
> >
> >Someone I have been speaking with recently was there "at the inception"
and
> >offered a little insight. The info I posted was from google searches only
> >(searched by another, not me), and reflects the controversy, as well as
the
> >lack of scientific respect, that surrounds the inner core of Findhorn.
>
> It's certainly not a scientific institution. There have been many
> controversies recently and some people leaving. I'm not involved in the
> community and never have been but I'm only 20 miles away and they have a
> good shop and cafe and are on the way to a good beach so I do visit it
> occasionally.
> >
> >Again, his choice of backup when intending to make a credible argument,
was
> >ridiculous.
>
> Everything about MV's "arguments" is ridiculous.
Of course - I've seen enough to know this (after the first post of his I
read - you don't have to catch on quick to figure him out).
> >Oh, and the _rest_ of the reason I posted what I did, in the way I did,
was
> >for pure unadulterated 'shit-slinging' purposes. If some of it stuck too
> >close to home for your own comfort, then, well, I could not care less.
>
> I found your post entertaining - full or rubbish but entertaining. I
> just thought I'd point out that being referred to by MV doesn't
> automatically damn anyone.
It was the other way round the way I intended it - that he had damned his
own 'argument' (heh....) by that quoted letter, where in the same paragraph,
he mentioned someone conversing with chimps, _and_ Findhorn, where some
people freely confess to speaking with elves and sprites.
I thought it would be interesting to point out his foolish short sightedness
in doing this.
> >So, either take my post to MV's tripe in the spirit it was intended, or
not.
> >Call me bad names, or not. Go into the woods and hold conversations with
> >chimps, elves and sprites if you so desire. It won't rock my boat.
>
> Ha! I view such "conversations" as naive and deluded at best. But I
> don't think they are harmful and certainly not Satanic.
_I_ didn't say they were ',;~}
> And some of the
> things Findhorn does are valuable.
Undoubtedly. The more people talking to elves and such at Findhorn, the less
likely I am to have them cross my path on the trails ',;~}
Heheheh........
It sure did sound like you were trying to pick a serious argument out of
this, though, despite your (professed) knowledge of MV's MO, and how I was
responding to it.
Shaun aRe "I have nothing against satanists, some of my best friends are
satanists" - how far can you stretch political correctness?
--
Usenet bag to package onions.
Shaun Rimmer
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VmT1EnDl...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ab83rb$eam$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
> >
> >
> >Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >news:GlkB0mJ4...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <ab66o5$pnv$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
> >> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Oh, you mean this Findhorn?:
> >>
> >> Garbage about Findhorn snipped.
> >
> >Snip away - it's still there ',;~}
>
> Of course, but there seemed no need to repeat it all.
It was all FACT I tell you! If you want to say it wasn't, quote your sources
of PROOF!
> >> Some of the people at Findhorn may have some unusual ideas and beliefs
> >
> >(!!!! Heheheh........)
> >
> >> but the description in the stuff you posted smacks of Christian
> >> fundamentalism and intolerance that brands anything they disapprove of
> >> as Satantic.
> >
> >Not bloody likely. A lot of what I saw was written by people from within
the
> >Findhorn org. What I posted was a random collection of search results. If
> >you are that interested, do yourself a favour, and take an in depth look
at
> >the whole spread of information that is out there re. Findhorn.
>
> I have. It's a mishmash of realistic sounding claims, clear sour grapes,
> internal politics and confused thinking.
Pretty much like any other cult then? ',;~}
> How much of it is true I have
> no idea but you can find similar stuff on just about any organisation -
> religious, political, recreational or whatever.
Too true - like the WI charity crochet club........smoke and fire..........
> >> With reference to Findhorn this stuff is laughable.
> >
> >Reference to Findhorn is laughable stuff ',;~}
> >
> >Ecological ideals, socio-ecological experiments etc. are all well and
good
> >in my book. Preaching communion with elves and "nature spirits" as a way
to
> >protect and heal the delicate ecological infrastructures of this planet?
>
> Pointless and naive. But some good groups have come out of Findhorn
Ahhh, 'come out of Findhorn and left all the kooks there?
> such
> as Trees for Life, who work for the restoration of the Caledonian Forest
> and do many scientific studies. They have credibility with Forest
> Enterprise, the RSPB, many other bodies and some private landowners.
Again, I tells ya: My intent was to see what MV would have in response - I
thought that was obvious.
> >Anyhow, I'm off to involve my self in something more frivolous and fun -
> >feel free to waste your time trying to insult me if you don't like what I
> >posted - it's your time to waste.
>
> There's something more frivolous than Usenet?
I was talking about Usenet - just not debating unnecessarily on Usenet.
> (Fun yes).
(hell no!)
Shaun aRe if you can't poke holes in an MV argument, you couldn't drain
cabbage in a colander.
--
Usenet for stockings.
Chris Townsend
>
>
>Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VmT1EnDl...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <ab83rb$eam$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
>> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
>> >
>> >
>> >Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:GlkB0mJ4...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <ab66o5$pnv$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
>> >> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Oh, you mean this Findhorn?:
>> >>
>> >> Garbage about Findhorn snipped.
>> >
>> >Snip away - it's still there ',;~}
>>
>> Of course, but there seemed no need to repeat it all.
>
>It was all FACT I tell you! If you want to say it wasn't, quote your sources
>of PROOF!
A good imitation but not quite manic enough.
>
>> >> Some of the people at Findhorn may have some unusual ideas and beliefs
>> >
>> >(!!!! Heheheh........)
>> >
>> >> but the description in the stuff you posted smacks of Christian
>> >> fundamentalism and intolerance that brands anything they disapprove of
>> >> as Satantic.
>> >
>> >Not bloody likely. A lot of what I saw was written by people from within
>the
>> >Findhorn org. What I posted was a random collection of search results. If
>> >you are that interested, do yourself a favour, and take an in depth look
>at
>> >the whole spread of information that is out there re. Findhorn.
>>
>> I have. It's a mishmash of realistic sounding claims, clear sour grapes,
>> internal politics and confused thinking.
>
>Pretty much like any other cult then? ',;~}
>
>> How much of it is true I have
>> no idea but you can find similar stuff on just about any organisation -
>> religious, political, recreational or whatever.
>
>Too true - like the WI charity crochet club........smoke and fire..........
Exactly. The nastiest dispute I've seen in recent years - which
eventually involved legal action, the police etc - was in the Mountain
Bothies Association, a voluntary organisation that restores and
maintains basic shelters in remote areas. To listen to some of the
people involved you'd have thought that others were agents of the
devils, the most evil men on earth etc, etc.
>
>> >> With reference to Findhorn this stuff is laughable.
>> >
>> >Reference to Findhorn is laughable stuff ',;~}
>> >
>> >Ecological ideals, socio-ecological experiments etc. are all well and
>good
>> >in my book. Preaching communion with elves and "nature spirits" as a way
>to
>> >protect and heal the delicate ecological infrastructures of this planet?
>>
>> Pointless and naive. But some good groups have come out of Findhorn
>
>Ahhh, 'come out of Findhorn and left all the kooks there?
>
>> such
>> as Trees for Life, who work for the restoration of the Caledonian Forest
>> and do many scientific studies. They have credibility with Forest
>> Enterprise, the RSPB, many other bodies and some private landowners.
>
>Again, I tells ya: My intent was to see what MV would have in response - I
>thought that was obvious.
I'll be surprised if MV responds. You moved away from mountain biking.
He posted on Findhorn once before - complaining that people at a
conference there arrived by car. How he got there from the States I
can't imagine. Balloon, presumably.
>
bomba
> He posted on Findhorn once before - complaining that people at a
> conference there arrived by car. How he got there from the States I
> can't imagine. Balloon, presumably.
No, he swam - totally unaware that the water wings he was using were
totally NON-RECYCLABLE. The bastard...
bomba
--
When I was a kid, I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I
realized that the Lord, in his wisdom, didn't work that way. So I just
stole one and asked him to forgive me.
Emo Philips
Shaun Rimmer
Chris Townsend <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:uzurRYNQ...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
> In article <ab8fot$ibf$1...@news.airtime.co.uk>, Shaun Rimmer
> <sh...@newtronic.co.uk> writes
> >> Of course, but there seemed no need to repeat it all.
> >
> >It was all FACT I tell you! If you want to say it wasn't, quote your
sources
> >of PROOF!
>
> A good imitation but not quite manic enough.
Yeah - caffeine levels a little low today. Say, how many times per rant do
you think he reaches for his crack pipe?
> >> How much of it is true I have
> >> no idea but you can find similar stuff on just about any organisation -
> >> religious, political, recreational or whatever.
> >
> >Too true - like the WI charity crochet club........smoke and
fire..........
>
> Exactly. The nastiest dispute I've seen in recent years - which
> eventually involved legal action, the police etc - was in the Mountain
> Bothies Association, a voluntary organisation that restores and
> maintains basic shelters in remote areas. To listen to some of the
> people involved you'd have thought that others were agents of the
> devils, the most evil men on earth etc, etc.
But they are!
> >Again, I tells ya: My intent was to see what MV would have in response -
I
> >thought that was obvious.
> I'll be surprised if MV responds. You moved away from mountain biking.
He responds occasionally to my poking him with a sharp stick. Usually, he
just gives up when he realises he's tripping over his own toes trying to
dance with me......although why, when he has nothing left to lose, I don't
know......
> He posted on Findhorn once before - complaining that people at a
> conference there arrived by car. How he got there from the States I
> can't imagine. Balloon, presumably.
Nah....I mean, wher would he find the hot air? Bwaaa-haaaa! ',;~}
Shaun aRe - You don't make serious soup by starting with a laughing stock
(tm).
--
Usenet to Usenet - The Zen Way.
Shaun Rimmer
bomba <uknowuluvituslag@no_spamhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3CD7D593.460E8964@no_spamhotmail.com...
> Chris Townsend wrote:
>
> > He posted on Findhorn once before - complaining that people at a
> > conference there arrived by car. How he got there from the States I
> > can't imagine. Balloon, presumably.
>
> No, he swam - totally unaware that the water wings he was using were
> totally NON-RECYCLABLE. The bastard...
Indeed.
And despite the extent of his flapping - he's never gonna fly.
Shaun aRe
--
Don't need no godamn sig.
John S. Watson
>
> . Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
> .as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
>
> BS. Humans are native to AFRICA. Everywhere else, we are a rank
> newcomer (exotic species).
>
>
> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
What a silly, pathetic response ... from someone who *supposedly* has a Ph.D,
and *supposedly* cares about the environment.
Does "Dr." Vandeman think then, that just because humans are native
to Africa, that they have carte blanche to do whatever they like to the
African environment?
JW
david yeung
that you have a phD. i bet you're just some stupid, lazy old man with
nothing better to do :(
vlj
MikeeVee is a misanthrope ... no more, no less. To equate him with stupid,
lazy old men undeservedly elevates his social status and does a grave
disservice to stupid, lazy old men.
Cheers,
VLJ
--
Take only pictures, leave only bullet holes ...
Karl Frisch
How many times do we have to go over this? He does have a Ph.D.
<Snipped from the UCLA Libraby>
Title:
Chemical description of food taste
preferences among Black-, Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by
means
of nonmetric multidimensional scaling / by
Michael Joseph Vandeman.
Published/distributed:
1973.
Physical description:
vii, 109 leaves : ill.
Notes:
Includes vita.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--UCLA, 1973.
Bibliography : leaves 99-109.
Subject(s):
Food preferences.
Food--Research.
Taste.
Dissertations, Academic--UCLA--Psychology.
Database control #:
07-AMM-7160
Not that a Psychology Ph.D. makes one an expert in Enviromental Science
or Wildlife Biology.
Paul M Davis
To insist that New Age thinking (in particular the New Age movement
articulated by Ferguson in her very popular 1980's book "The Aquarian
Conspiracy" is not satanic reflects an ignorance of New Age, satanism, or
both. The word "satan" (meaning accuser, or slanderer) predates
Christianity by thousands of years, and fundamentalism by a couple of
thousand more. The book of Job is ancient. I seriously doubt that someone
who attributes satanism to "a spurious set of beliefs invented by Christians
in order to persecute non believers" has done even a rudimentary amount of
"face time" with the issues.
Chris Townsend
>
>"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:GWgx43Cq...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <CKJB8.181$Yi6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Paul M
>> Davis <pm...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >
>> >"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >news:YMDWOjPn...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>> >> In article <fWEB8.1523$663.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
>> >> Paul M Davis <pm...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >> >
>> >> >"Chris Townsend" <Ch...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> >news:GlkB0mJ4...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk...
>>
is. However so-called modern satanism seems to me mostly an invention of
fundamentalist Christians (I am not including most Christians in this).
Encyclopedia Britannica on satanism:
"also called DEVIL WORSHIP, worship of Satan, or the devil, the
personality or principle regarded by the Judeo-Christian tradition as
embodying absolute evil in complete antithesis to God."
Britannica goes on to say that many witches and followers of
non-Christian religions have been persecuted as satanists even though
they aren't. It is very easy to blacken others with the name of your
symbol of evil.
New Age beliefs are a mish-mash of bits of various religions, mysticism,
the occult, Tarot cards, astrology, crystals and much more. Believers
seem to pick and choose which bits they like or choose to follow. I've
not seen anything in New Age thinking that suggests devil worship though
I'm sure that some of its adherents end up with some dangerous beliefs
and practices. That's bound to happen in such a vague, amorphous
movement. Most New Age people seem to have naive but pleasant beliefs in
love and nature and general well being.
Mike Vandeman
<newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd68e71...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> Wrong! Everyone has to live in a building,
.
.Wrong!
.
.>If you live in a house, how can you complain about someone else
.> living in a house, HYPOCRITE?????
.
.Because my complaint is not about living in houses--My complaint is that you
.think you're somehow better than others because of certain behaviors or lack
.thereof,
BS. Show me where I have EVER said that! I just tell the truth --
something mountain bikers can't stand.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd68e71...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> On Mon, 06 May 2002 11:42:12 GMT, "Chris McMartin"
.> <newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
.>
.> ."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.> .news:3cd5e0ac...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> .> .> .My money's on golf for "most destructive" in terms of habitat loss.
.> .> .>
.> .> .> Creating golf courses is not the same as the sport. DUH!
.> .> .
.> .> .So if I didn't CREATE the mountain bike trail, I can ride it with a
.clear
.> .> .conscience? Interesting!
.> .>
.> .> You guys don't even HAVE a conscience, much less a "clear" one.
.> .
.> .Your evasion of the question, in addition to previous posts where you
.imply
.> .living in a habitat-eliminating house is OK because YOU didn't build it,
.is
.> .taken as agreement with me.
.>
.> Wrong! Everyone has to live in a building, but mountain biking is
.> TOTALLY unnecessary. Banning bikes greatly reducec impacts on natural
.> areas. If you live in a house, how can you complain about someone else
.> living in a house, HYPOCRITE?????
.> ===
.> 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
.>
.
.
.In a free society persons have a recognized right to "life, liberty, and the
.pursuit of happiness", just as much as you have a right to have a roof over
.your head and the right to shop in grocery stores.
.
.No, mountain biking is not "totally unnecessary" in that medical studies
.have established that at least 35 minutes of intense aerobic exercise three
.times a week creates a significant increase in aerobic capacity, blood
.pressure regulation, glycogen levels and numerous other health benefits.
.Bicycling, along with running, swimming and walking is one of the most
.commonly recommended means by which human health can be maintained and
.increased. It is an activity that many reasonable persons find to be
.enjoyable. Riding off of heavily trafficked streets increases safety and
.generally increases the quality of the experience.
BS. Mountain bikers have a very HIGH rate of accidents, including
fatalities. In any case, since you can get aerobic exercise in many
other ways, you have NO excuse for doing it by destroying willdife
habitat.
Trail riding is a
.legitimate active recreation activity. The correct societal approach is to
.provide a place for destructive activities
Yes. In JAIL!
where they will have the least
.degree of negative environmental impact.
Then ride on already-existing PAVEMENT, where you can do little
environmental harm. NOT in wildlife habitat.
That might mean intentionally
.developing a trail system to focus the destruction on a specified pathway
.that can be repaired and maintained as necessary and restricting traffic to
.off-trail areas. It might mean prohibiting bicycles from specific sensitive
.areas.
Yes. ALL wildlife habitat!
A complete ban of all off-road cycling is not legally or socially
.sustainable.
BS. A federal court disagreed with you:
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/mtb10.htm: There is absolutely no
legal right to mountain bike.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.mjv...@pacbell.net (Mike Vandeman) wrote in message news:<3ccc3f5a...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>...
.>
.> . Human beings are indiginous to the earth (and the desert) just
.> .as other animals are. Why do you wish to exclude only human animals?
.>
.> BS. Humans are native to AFRICA. Everywhere else, we are a rank
.> newcomer (exotic species).
.>
.>
.> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
.
.What a silly, pathetic response ... from someone who *supposedly* has a Ph.D,
.and *supposedly* cares about the environment.
.
.Does "Dr." Vandeman think then, that just because humans are native
.to Africa, that they have carte blanche to do whatever they like to the
.African environment?
Where did you get that idea? I guess you made it up. See below:
July 1, 2000
Dr. Jane Goodall
Jane Goodall Institute
P.O. Box 727
Dar es Salaam
Tanzania
Re: The Truth about Chimps
Dear Dr. Goodall:
Thank you for your reply. You are one of my heroes, and I
treasure my contact with you, both in person (at the "for the Love of
Nature" conference in Findhorn, Scotland last year) and through your
writings.
Of all people in the world, you can best deliver this message.
You have the ear of the world. You are respected and loved, worldwide.
Therefore it is extremely important that you tell the truth about the
chimps and other wildlife: they don't want us around! They "told" you
that clearly and unequivocally when you first contacted them, as did
the orangutans to Birute Galdikas, and the gorillas to Dian Fossey.
The chimps desperately need you to deliver their message to the rest
of humanity. Although the message is impossible to miss, most humans
ignore it.
This is perhaps a bitter pill, but one that the world urgently
needs to take. With our population increasing rapidly, it is more
important than ever to give wildlife what they want, which is also,
therefore, what they need: freedom from the pressure, irritation,
infection with diseases, and outright danger of the presence of
humans. It is utterly inexcusable that we continue extending our
hegemony into every square inch of the Earth -- and soon, other
defenseless planets as well.
This is a tall order? Very well, then it is a tall order. But
I do not see why we shouldn't aim for what is needed, instead of
pretending that less is adequate. Do you?
Sincerely yours,
Michael J. Vandeman,
Ph.D.
P.S. You mentioned that humans are part of the animal kingdom, as
though that could excuse our behavior. That we are a part of the
animal kingdom is undeniable, but trivial -- it has no moral or
behavioral implications, like the fact that we are made of atoms. The
real question is what part? We are obviously the most destructive
part!
What makes a species a native? A native species is basically one that
has been in a given location for a long time. However, every species
is a newcomer at some time, so how long does it take to become a
"native"? I think that the most sensible answer is: the length of time
that it takes the other species in that ecosystem to evolve to adapt
to it. That (successful mutations) happens on the evolutionary time
scale, hence on the order of millions of years. That would make humans
native only to Africa, and everywhere else an exotic species
(newcomer). That is not a value judgement, merely a biological
description of our place in the ecosystem.
However, even in Africa, the rate at which human behavior changes
implies that the only organisms that can really keep up with us are
viruses and bacteria. I think that this implies that we should act as
if we are an exotic species: i.e., with great restraint! We are simply
too powerful a force to be able to coexist with any other species.
There are a few that have been able to coexist with us to some degree,
but in general, we are a bull in their china closet (or, as I like to
say, the ants at every other species's picnic).
To see the effects of humans on wildlife, it is not very useful to
look at the "steady-state" situation that obtains after long
cohabitation. The most definitive test is to look at what happens when
humans first arrive at a given location. In every case, we have
decimated the local species (e.g. see The End of Evolution, by Peter
Ward). I think it is time to stop pining for a romantic past that
never existed (except in the Old Testament of the Bible), face the
reality, as unpleasant as that might be, and start listening to what
the wildlife are really telling us. If anyone can do that, I think it
is you! (See, I have you on a pedestal -- or at least a stump! J )
It is certainly amazing and inspiring to learn about wildlife, but we
have placed artificial limits on that knowledge, so that the
unpleasant, "inconvenient" facts are filtered out (even by scientists,
who should know better -- or have I idealized them too much?).
As you say, "an experience of wilderness changes people for ever".
Yes, sometimes, but not always in a positive way. It could just as
easily open their eyes to more resources to exploit. It is not
guaranteed to make them an environmentalist or deep ecologist, and we
shouldn't assume that it does! Sure, it is necessary to experience
wilderness, in order to appreciate it. But that needn't be often, nor
need it be pristine wilderness. There is a degree of wildness on every
leaf!
By the way, I think that children grow up loving the type of
surroundings they experience when young. If they grow up on concrete,
they will tend to love concrete. So I think that every time a child
is born, we should execute a ceremony: they should first be introduced
to their mother, then to their father, and then taken to see some
wilderness. Where else can they learn the way the world is supposed to
be? Of course, they should also be taught to respect and stay out of
that wilderness, as much as possible.
References:
Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.
Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.
Knight, Richard L. and Kevin J. Gutzwiller, eds. Wildlife and
Recreationists. Covelo, California: Island Press, c.1995.
Margulis, Lynn and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos -- Four Billion Years of
Microbial Evolution. Berkeley, California: University of California
Press, c. 1986.
Myers, Norman, ed., Gaia: An Atlas of Planet Management, Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books, 1984.
Noss, Reed F., "The Ecological Effects of Roads", in "Killing Roads",
Earth First!
Noss, Reed F. and Allen Y. Cooperrider, Saving Nature's Legacy:
Protecting and Restoring Biodiversity. Island Press, Covelo,
California, 1994.
Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights
for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc.,
1973.
Vandeman, Michael J., http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, especially
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/ecocity3.htm and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.htm.
Ward, Peter Douglas, The End of Evolution: On Mass Extinctions and the
Preservation of Biodiversity. New York: Bantam Books, 1994.
"The Wildlands Project", Wild Earth. Richmond, Vermont: The Cenozoic
Society, 1994.
Wilson, Edward O., The Diversity of Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1992.
Mike Vandeman
.mike, you're an idiot. and who do you think you're fooling pretending
.that you have a phD. i bet you're just some stupid, lazy old man with
.nothing better to do :(
What could be better than protecting wildlife from idiot mountain
bikers?
Mike Vandeman
.david yeung <dky...@ualberta.ca> sez:
.
.> mike, you're an idiot. and who do you think you're fooling pretending
.> that you have a phD. i bet you're just some stupid, lazy old man with
.> nothing better to do :(
.
.MikeeVee is a misanthrope ... no more, no less.
I just tell the truth. I know mountain bikers can't stand that.
To equate him with stupid,
.lazy old men undeservedly elevates his social status and does a grave
.disservice to stupid, lazy old men.
.
.Cheers,
.VLJ
.--
.Take only pictures, leave only bullet holes ...
.
.
Mike Vandeman
wrote:
.david yeung wrote:
.>
.> mike, you're an idiot. and who do you think you're fooling pretending
.> that you have a phD. i bet you're just some stupid, lazy old man with
.> nothing better to do :(
.
.How many times do we have to go over this? He does have a Ph.D.
.
.<Snipped from the UCLA Libraby>
.
.Title:
. Chemical description of food taste
.preferences among Black-, Japanese-, and Mexican-Americans derived by
.means
. of nonmetric multidimensional scaling / by
.Michael Joseph Vandeman.
.Published/distributed:
. 1973.
.Physical description:
. vii, 109 leaves : ill.
.Notes:
. Includes vita.
. Thesis (Ph.D.)--UCLA, 1973.
. Bibliography : leaves 99-109.
.Subject(s):
. Food preferences.
. Food--Research.
. Taste.
. Dissertations, Academic--UCLA--Psychology.
.Database control #:
. 07-AMM-7160
.
.Not that a Psychology Ph.D. makes one an expert in Enviromental Science
.or Wildlife Biology.
No one ever said it does. But it DOES make one an expert in the nature
of science.
Chris McMartin
> What could be better than protecting wildlife from idiot mountain
> bikers?
Lots and lots and lots of things. How about no more clear-and-build housing
tracts, for one? Far greater damage, and you don't even have to be in any
sort of physical shape to do it!
Mike Vandeman
<newsg...@mountainboomer.com> wrote:
."Mike Vandeman" <mjv...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
.news:3cd86fc0...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
.> What could be better than protecting wildlife from idiot mountain
.> bikers?
.
.Lots and lots and lots of things. How about no more clear-and-build housing
.tracts, for one? Far greater damage, and you don't even have to be in any
.sort of physical shape to do it!
Then why aren't you doing it, instead of spending your time selfishly
pleasuring yourself on your mountain bike?!
Paul M Davis
> On Tue, 07 May 2002 00:01:21 GMT, "Paul M Davis" <pm...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> BS. Mountain bikers have a very HIGH rate of accidents, including
> fatalities. In any case, since you can get aerobic exercise in many
> other ways, you have NO excuse for doing it by destroying willdife
> habitat.
>
Actually, I hike, run and swim. I don't even own a bike. But following
your same lack of logic that since one has the ability to speak about topics
other than mountain bikes, one has no right to talk about mountain bikes.
However, we fortunately live in a free society where persons are not
expected to kow tow to the arbitrary and random dictates of tyrants,
mountain bikers will still have a place in the forest.
Paul M Davis
> On 7 May 2002 11:41:24 -0700, dky...@ualberta.ca (david yeung) wrote:
>
> .mike, you're an idiot. and who do you think you're fooling pretending
> .that you have a phD. i bet you're just some stupid, lazy old man with
> .nothing better to do :(
>
> What could be better than protecting wildlife from idiot mountain
> bikers?
Protecting mountain bikers from idiots?