"Bicycles Should Not be Allowed on Footpaths"

On Jul 19, 9:39*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:21:35 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:57*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 11:27:16 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:23*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 17, 8:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:28*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 16, 11:35*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
From: [a Marin County resident]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:40:54 -0700
Subject: Mt.bikes on trails

I have lived in Marin County for 50 years, seeing firsthand the rise
of, and impact from, mountain bicycling. *I am an equestrian and
hiker. *

Animals should not be used as vehicles, especially when people can
always WALK! I have yet to meet ANYONE who cleans up after their horse
deficates in the middle of a path or trail. Why are people so SELFISH,
making an animal carry them?

It's better than using motor vehicles or mountain bikes. For people
with disabilities, it may be their only access to wilderness.

Wrong.

NO animal should be used as a vehicle for a human, a point you seem to
be avoiding, that's not surprising considering your documented habit
of avoiding the TRUTH. *A horse doesn't ask to carry around a human,
dummy.

Wildlife doesn't want what is "better" for selfish people,

There isn't much that's more selfish than working in the airline
industry. Or denying people with disabilities the right to visit the
wilderness they pay for.

But you want to deny them that right when they want to use a bicycle.

Disabled people can't use bikes, because you have to be able to walk
hime, in case you get a flat.

Another Michael J. Vandeman LIE.

Spare tubes, patches, pumps. All are carried by most cyclists. Stop
lying to make a point, it makes you lose what little credibility you
may have had.

BS. It is VERY EASY to crash and make your bike unrideable. Truly
disabled people can't mountain bike.

That's not what you wrote, why are you changing your story now?

It's because you were WRONG...again.

Not everyone can afford a horse so a bicycle would be a viable
alternative for them. So which is it Mike, deny disabled people only
if on a bike but not deny those on horses?

This is the advice Michael J. Vandeman gave a disabled woman who
wanted to use a bicycle...

"Get a wheelchair. And don't expect us to sacrifice wildlife, just so
you
can use their home as your personal physical therapist. Just because
you
hurt yourself in a car accident, that is no reason for the public to
sacrifice wildlife for you. Stop being such a bad role model for your
grandchildren! If you REALLY "loved nature" you wouldn't destroy it
for
your own pleasure."

hat is a good example of PRETENDING to be disabled, in order to
promote mountain biking. Mountain biking actually CREATES disablement
in many people.

Please show us proof that the person mentioned is pretending, I am
sure that someone making that sort of accusation has 100% proof,
otherwise that is LYING and libel.

As I said, no truly disabled person can mountain bike, so she must not
be truly disabled. Maybe she's hard of hearing....

You need to get an education so you stop making yourself look so
STUPID.

http://www.mtb-amputee.com/LegAmputees.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfL9wAH8Dyo

No legs...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxqwD...eature=related

That's really bright: no way to get home, if you crash. Well, I never
said that mountain bikers are SMART!

Same goes for a hiker who falls off a cliff, DUH!

On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 19, 9:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:59*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:25:35 -0500, Tom Sherman

wrote:
Siskuwihane wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:23 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
...
But you want to deny them that right when they want to use a bicycle.
Disabled people can't use bikes, because you have to be able to walk
hime, in case you get a flat.

Another Michael J. Vandeman LIE.

*Spare tubes, patches, pumps. All are carried by most cyclists. Stop
lying to make a point, it makes you lose what little credibility you
may have had.

Indeed, there are quite a few paraplegic hand cyclists out there who
could negotiate most hiking type trails with an appropriate tire choice.

BS. It is VERY EASY to crash and make the bike unrideable. Then they
would be stranded. Disabled people can't mountain bike. But you
already knew that. You just can't ever admit losing.

You've been on the losing end of this thread since its inception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxqwD...eature=related

You can't even post correctly! "The URL contained a malformed video
ID."


BS Michael J. Vandeman, it works just fine, must be your thrift store
computer.

Computers don't lie. Mountain bikers DO.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Jul 19, 6:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:42:48 -0700
wrote:



On Jul 19, 8:26*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT), bluezfolk

wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:28 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 16, 11:35 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
From: [a Marin County resident]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:40:54 -0700
Subject: Mt.bikes on trails

I have lived in Marin County for 50 years, seeing firsthand the rise
of, and impact from, mountain bicycling. *I am an equestrian and
hiker.

Animals should not be used as vehicles, especially when people can
always WALK! I have yet to meet ANYONE who cleans up after their horse
deficates in the middle of a path or trail. Why are people so SELFISH,
making an animal carry them?

It's better than using motor vehicles or mountain bikes. For people
with disabilities, it may be their only access to wilderness.

Wrong.

NO animal should be used as a vehicle for a human, a point you seem to
be avoiding, that's not surprising considering your documented habit
of avoiding the TRUTH. *A horse doesn't ask to carry around a human,
dummy.

Wildlife doesn't want what is "better" for selfish people,

There isn't much that's more selfish than working in the airline
industry. Or denying people with disabilities the right to visit the
wilderness they pay for.

*they want

what's BEST for them and that means not having their lives interupted
or habitat destroyed by *people who have to bring huge animals into
their environment for their own pleasure.

Horses are domesticated animals, not wildlife.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

So I guess what you are hinting at is that its alright to abuse
domesticated animals, but not alright to abuse wildlife.

I didn't say that. YOU did.

* Perhaps

since thy're not native to North America they should be sent back to
where they came from.

Horses are native to North America. Ther evolved here.

Some horse-like species were native to North America until they became
extinct. *That would be about as close as mastodons or wooly mammoths
are to modern elephants.

Any horse today would trace its lineage from Europe or Asia.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance. The HORSE evolved in
North America. I.e., ALL horses trace their lineage to North America.

No - the horse evolved all over the world. The domesticated horse
(Equus caballus) we see today was definitely derived from domesticated
European and Asian horses from the past 3,000 years or so. I
understand there's controversy over whether or not the ancestors of
European/Asian horses came via North America, but that's besides the
point. Certainly there was no "straight line" evolution of horse-like
species, but any animal we'd think of as a horse today came from
Eurasian stock.

The domesticated horse is definitely not a "native species" by a long
shot. A gray wolf would be a species native to North America, but an
Irish wolfhound would not be. I'm sure they would have some sort of
common heritage with dog species from way back, but that doesn't make
the wolfhound

Any horse species native to North America likely mostly died out over
10,000 years ago. They had their day and didn't manage to survive.
I've heard claims that some might have survived longer, but those
claims don't seem to be backed up well. I still stand by the assertion
that any horse today would be as related to a similar horse species in
North America as a modern elephant is to a wooly mammoth.

On Jul 20, 3:16*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 19, 9:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:59*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:25:35 -0500, Tom Sherman

wrote:
Siskuwihane wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:23 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
...
But you want to deny them that right when they want to use a bicycle.
Disabled people can't use bikes, because you have to be able to walk
hime, in case you get a flat.

Another Michael J. Vandeman LIE.

*Spare tubes, patches, pumps. All are carried by most cyclists.. Stop
lying to make a point, it makes you lose what little credibility you
may have had.

Indeed, there are quite a few paraplegic hand cyclists out there who
could negotiate most hiking type trails with an appropriate tire choice.

BS. It is VERY EASY to crash and make the bike unrideable. Then they
would be stranded. Disabled people can't mountain bike. But you
already knew that. You just can't ever admit losing.

You've been on the losing end of this thread since its inception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxqwD...eature=related

You can't even post correctly! "The URL contained a malformed video
ID."

BS Michael J. Vandeman, it works just fine, must be your thrift store
computer.

Computers don't lie. Mountain bikers DO.

Since Mike Vandeman is a mountain biker that would also make him a
liar,

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:52:39 -0700 (PDT), y_p_w
wrote:

On Jul 19, 6:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:42:48 -0700
wrote:



On Jul 19, 8:26*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT), bluezfolk

wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:28 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 16, 11:35 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
From: [a Marin County resident]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:40:54 -0700
Subject: Mt.bikes on trails

I have lived in Marin County for 50 years, seeing firsthand the rise
of, and impact from, mountain bicycling. *I am an equestrian and
hiker.

Animals should not be used as vehicles, especially when people can
always WALK! I have yet to meet ANYONE who cleans up after their horse
deficates in the middle of a path or trail. Why are people so SELFISH,
making an animal carry them?

It's better than using motor vehicles or mountain bikes. For people
with disabilities, it may be their only access to wilderness.

Wrong.

NO animal should be used as a vehicle for a human, a point you seem to
be avoiding, that's not surprising considering your documented habit
of avoiding the TRUTH. *A horse doesn't ask to carry around a human,
dummy.

Wildlife doesn't want what is "better" for selfish people,

There isn't much that's more selfish than working in the airline
industry. Or denying people with disabilities the right to visit the
wilderness they pay for.

*they want

what's BEST for them and that means not having their lives interupted
or habitat destroyed by *people who have to bring huge animals into
their environment for their own pleasure.

Horses are domesticated animals, not wildlife.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

So I guess what you are hinting at is that its alright to abuse
domesticated animals, but not alright to abuse wildlife.

I didn't say that. YOU did.

* Perhaps

since thy're not native to North America they should be sent back to
where they came from.

Horses are native to North America. Ther evolved here.

Some horse-like species were native to North America until they became
extinct. *That would be about as close as mastodons or wooly mammoths
are to modern elephants.

Any horse today would trace its lineage from Europe or Asia.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance. The HORSE evolved in
North America. I.e., ALL horses trace their lineage to North America.

No - the horse evolved all over the world.

Right, after ORIGINATING in North America, as I said.

The domesticated horse
(Equus caballus) we see today was definitely derived from domesticated
European and Asian horses from the past 3,000 years or so. I
understand there's controversy over whether or not the ancestors of
European/Asian horses came via North America, but that's besides the
point. Certainly there was no "straight line" evolution of horse-like
species, but any animal we'd think of as a horse today came from
Eurasian stock.

The domesticated horse is definitely not a "native species" by a long
shot. A gray wolf would be a species native to North America, but an
Irish wolfhound would not be. I'm sure they would have some sort of
common heritage with dog species from way back, but that doesn't make
the wolfhound

Any horse species native to North America likely mostly died out over
10,000 years ago. They had their day and didn't manage to survive.
I've heard claims that some might have survived longer, but those
claims don't seem to be backed up well. I still stand by the assertion
that any horse today would be as related to a similar horse species in
North America as a modern elephant is to a wooly mammoth.

And some have suggested bringing elephants "back" to North America, I
guess to make up for humans wiping out those that were around when
humans arrived in North America.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 04:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
wrote:

On Jul 20, 3:16*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 20:05:19 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane





wrote:
On Jul 19, 9:01*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:27:56 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 19, 10:59*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:25:35 -0500, Tom Sherman

wrote:
Siskuwihane wrote:
On Jul 18, 11:23 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 19:23:06 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane
...
But you want to deny them that right when they want to use a bicycle.
Disabled people can't use bikes, because you have to be able to walk
hime, in case you get a flat.

Another Michael J. Vandeman LIE.

*Spare tubes, patches, pumps. All are carried by most cyclists. Stop
lying to make a point, it makes you lose what little credibility you
may have had.

Indeed, there are quite a few paraplegic hand cyclists out there who
could negotiate most hiking type trails with an appropriate tire choice.

BS. It is VERY EASY to crash and make the bike unrideable. Then they
would be stranded. Disabled people can't mountain bike. But you
already knew that. You just can't ever admit losing.

You've been on the losing end of this thread since its inception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxqwD...eature=related

You can't even post correctly! "The URL contained a malformed video
ID."

BS Michael J. Vandeman, it works just fine, must be your thrift store
computer.

Computers don't lie. Mountain bikers DO.

Since Mike Vandeman is a mountain biker

No, YOU are the liar, as you well know.

that would also make him a
liar,
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Jul 20, 7:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:52:39 -0700
wrote:



On Jul 19, 6:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:42:48 -0700
wrote:

On Jul 19, 8:26*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT), bluezfolk

wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:28 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 16, 11:35 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
From: [a Marin County resident]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:40:54 -0700
Subject: Mt.bikes on trails

I have lived in Marin County for 50 years, seeing firsthand the rise
of, and impact from, mountain bicycling. *I am an equestrian and
hiker.

Animals should not be used as vehicles, especially when people can
always WALK! I have yet to meet ANYONE who cleans up after their horse
deficates in the middle of a path or trail. Why are people so SELFISH,
making an animal carry them?

It's better than using motor vehicles or mountain bikes. For people
with disabilities, it may be their only access to wilderness.

Wrong.

NO animal should be used as a vehicle for a human, a point you seem to
be avoiding, that's not surprising considering your documented habit
of avoiding the TRUTH. *A horse doesn't ask to carry around a human,
dummy.

Wildlife doesn't want what is "better" for selfish people,

There isn't much that's more selfish than working in the airline
industry. Or denying people with disabilities the right to visit the
wilderness they pay for.

*they want

what's BEST for them and that means not having their lives interupted
or habitat destroyed by *people who have to bring huge animals into
their environment for their own pleasure.

Horses are domesticated animals, not wildlife.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

So I guess what you are hinting at is that its alright to abuse
domesticated animals, but not alright to abuse wildlife.

I didn't say that. YOU did.

* Perhaps

since thy're not native to North America they should be sent back to
where they came from.

Horses are native to North America. Ther evolved here.

Some horse-like species were native to North America until they became
extinct. *That would be about as close as mastodons or wooly mammoths
are to modern elephants.

Any horse today would trace its lineage from Europe or Asia.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance. The HORSE evolved in
North America. I.e., ALL horses trace their lineage to North America.

No - the horse evolved all over the world.

Right, after ORIGINATING in North America, as I said.

Your point being? We're talking about a species starting off on a
supercontinent and their ancestors moving back and forth across the
Bering ice bridge. I only said that the lineage of modern
domesticated horses came through Eurasia. I didn't say that they
couldn't be further traced back to ancestry from other continents. My
reading of the origin of the horse is that it derived from
Hyracotherium which ranged from Asia to North America.

Yeah - might as well bring back the dinosaur.

* The domesticated horse



(Equus caballus) we see today was definitely derived from domesticated
European and Asian horses from the past 3,000 years or so. *I
understand there's controversy over whether or not the ancestors of
European/Asian horses came via North America, but that's besides the
point. *Certainly there was no "straight line" evolution of horse-like
species, but any animal we'd think of as a horse today came from
Eurasian stock.

The domesticated horse is definitely not a "native species" by a long
shot. *A gray wolf would be a species native to North America, but an
Irish wolfhound would not be. *I'm sure they would have some sort of
common heritage with dog species from way back, but that doesn't make
the wolfhound

Any horse species native to North America likely mostly died out over
10,000 years ago. *They had their day and didn't manage to survive.
I've heard claims that some might have survived longer, but those
claims don't seem to be backed up well. I still stand by the assertion
that any horse today would be as related to a similar horse species in
North America as a modern elephant is to a wooly mammoth.

And some have suggested bringing elephants "back" to North America, I
guess to make up for humans wiping out those that were around when
humans arrived in North America.

Uh yeah. Right. The wooly mammoth ain't exactly coming back.
There's no climate on Earth that would support them long term.

On Jul 17, 7:42 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

FWIW, I will be purchasing a mountain-bike (as soon as my 'bent is
sold) in the future. NOTHING Michael J. Vandeman has written will
dissuade that descision, in fact, he has had the opposite affect on me
due to his extreme narrow views and inabilty to have a rational
debate. I would tend to think he has that affect on more people than
he realizes.

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

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

It's a shame he has to resort to this sort of bullying instead of
rational discussion.

Do you condone this kind of response to your posts, Dr. Vandeman? Or
is this a throwback to how you behaved when you were a mountain
biker?

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 23:18:40 -0700 (PDT), y_p_w
wrote:

On Jul 20, 7:46*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 00:52:39 -0700
wrote:



On Jul 19, 6:41*pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 16:42:48 -0700
wrote:

On Jul 19, 8:26*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:58:56 -0700 (PDT), bluezfolk

wrote:
On Jul 17, 7:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:07:25 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 17, 10:28 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 06:20:35 -0700 (PDT), Siskuwihane

wrote:
On Jul 16, 11:35 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
From: [a Marin County resident]
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 15:40:54 -0700
Subject: Mt.bikes on trails

I have lived in Marin County for 50 years, seeing firsthand the rise
of, and impact from, mountain bicycling. *I am an equestrian and
hiker.

Animals should not be used as vehicles, especially when people can
always WALK! I have yet to meet ANYONE who cleans up after their horse
deficates in the middle of a path or trail. Why are people so SELFISH,
making an animal carry them?

It's better than using motor vehicles or mountain bikes. For people
with disabilities, it may be their only access to wilderness.

Wrong.

NO animal should be used as a vehicle for a human, a point you seem to
be avoiding, that's not surprising considering your documented habit
of avoiding the TRUTH. *A horse doesn't ask to carry around a human,
dummy.

Wildlife doesn't want what is "better" for selfish people,

There isn't much that's more selfish than working in the airline
industry. Or denying people with disabilities the right to visit the
wilderness they pay for.

*they want

what's BEST for them and that means not having their lives interupted
or habitat destroyed by *people who have to bring huge animals into
their environment for their own pleasure.

Horses are domesticated animals, not wildlife.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

So I guess what you are hinting at is that its alright to abuse
domesticated animals, but not alright to abuse wildlife.

I didn't say that. YOU did.

* Perhaps

since thy're not native to North America they should be sent back to
where they came from.

Horses are native to North America. Ther evolved here.

Some horse-like species were native to North America until they became
extinct. *That would be about as close as mastodons or wooly mammoths
are to modern elephants.

Any horse today would trace its lineage from Europe or Asia.

Thanks for demonstrating your utter ignorance. The HORSE evolved in
North America. I.e., ALL horses trace their lineage to North America.

No - the horse evolved all over the world.

Right, after ORIGINATING in North America, as I said.

Your point being?

My point being that horses have an arguable right to be here. Bicycles
DON'T. They have no rights whatsoever.

We're talking about a species starting off on a
supercontinent and their ancestors moving back and forth across the
Bering ice bridge. I only said that the lineage of modern
domesticated horses came through Eurasia. I didn't say that they
couldn't be further traced back to ancestry from other continents. My
reading of the origin of the horse is that it derived from
Hyracotherium which ranged from Asia to North America.

Yeah - might as well bring back the dinosaur.

* The domesticated horse



(Equus caballus) we see today was definitely derived from domesticated
European and Asian horses from the past 3,000 years or so. *I
understand there's controversy over whether or not the ancestors of
European/Asian horses came via North America, but that's besides the
point. *Certainly there was no "straight line" evolution of horse-like
species, but any animal we'd think of as a horse today came from
Eurasian stock.

The domesticated horse is definitely not a "native species" by a long
shot. *A gray wolf would be a species native to North America, but an
Irish wolfhound would not be. *I'm sure they would have some sort of
common heritage with dog species from way back, but that doesn't make
the wolfhound

Any horse species native to North America likely mostly died out over
10,000 years ago. *They had their day and didn't manage to survive.
I've heard claims that some might have survived longer, but those
claims don't seem to be backed up well. I still stand by the assertion
that any horse today would be as related to a similar horse species in
North America as a modern elephant is to a wooly mammoth.

And some have suggested bringing elephants "back" to North America, I
guess to make up for humans wiping out those that were around when
humans arrived in North America.

Uh yeah. Right. The wooly mammoth ain't exactly coming back.
There's no climate on Earth that would support them long term.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

On Mon, 21 Jul 2008 20:03:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 17, 7:42 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:

FWIW, I will be purchasing a mountain-bike (as soon as my 'bent is
sold) in the future. NOTHING Michael J. Vandeman has written will
dissuade that descision, in fact, he has had the opposite affect on me
due to his extreme narrow views and inabilty to have a rational
debate. I would tend to think he has that affect on more people than
he realizes.

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

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

It's a shame he has to resort to this sort of bullying instead of
rational discussion.

Do you condone this kind of response to your posts, Dr. Vandeman? Or
is this a throwback to how you behaved when you were a mountain
biker?


Look it up in the dictionary. You obviously don't understand what it
means.
--
I am working on creating wildlife habitat that is off-limits to
humans ("pure habitat"). Want to help? (I spent the previous 8
years fighting auto dependence and road construction.)

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande