So you admit HIKERS kill the wildlife!!!!

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc wrote:

MattB wrote:
cc wrote:
GeeDubb wrote:


"MattB" wrote in message
...

Wow. Scary!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16817149/

Glad he got away alive.

Matt

"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles north
of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the attack
happened.

The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
either animal mauled the man"


That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
which a park should represent . . . sheesh.

Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting the
first ones they could get.
I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
chain was designed to work.

Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
should do?

cc

No. Close the park permanently to humans.
===
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


Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
are examples in zoological museums.
===
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

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:
e

Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
are examples in zoological museums.
===
I suspect any animal which sets there permitting itself to be run over
is dead already. Or perhaps it lost in love and chooses death before
dishonor.

Gimme your take on snowmobiles.

-paul

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 11:34:46 -0800, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:
e
Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
are examples in zoological museums.
===
I suspect any animal which sets there permitting itself to be run over
is dead already. Or perhaps it lost in love and chooses death before
dishonor.

Gimme your take on snowmobiles.

-paul

They are instruments of the devil!
--
Mikey Vandersplam

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc wrote:

MattB wrote:
cc wrote:
GeeDubb wrote:


"MattB" wrote in message
...

Wow. Scary!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16817149/

Glad he got away alive.

Matt

"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
north
of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
attack
happened.

The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
either animal mauled the man"


That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
which a park should represent . . . sheesh.

Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
the
first ones they could get.
I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
chain was designed to work.

Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
should do?

cc

No. Close the park permanently to humans.
===
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


Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing these
numbers?
A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it.
Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions of cyclists
is evident in your statement of OPINION.
There are examples in zoological museums.

What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?

On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 12:34:46 -0700, Paul Cassel
wrote:

Mike Vandeman wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:
e

Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
are examples in zoological museums.
===
I suspect any animal which sets there permitting itself to be run over
is dead already. Or perhaps it lost in love and chooses death before
dishonor.

Excuses, excuses.

Gimme your take on snowmobiles.

Isn't it obvious?

-paul
===
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, 28 Jan 2007 17:47:44 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc wrote:

MattB wrote:
cc wrote:
GeeDubb wrote:


"MattB" wrote in message
...

Wow. Scary!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16817149/

Glad he got away alive.

Matt

"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
north
of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
attack
happened.

The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
either animal mauled the man"


That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
which a park should represent . . . sheesh.

Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
the
first ones they could get.
I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
chain was designed to work.

Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
should do?

cc

No. Close the park permanently to humans.
===
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


Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing these
numbers?

It's obvious.

A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it.
Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions of cyclists
is evident in your statement of OPINION.

But it's TRUE.

There are examples in zoological museums.

What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?

You can tell by the width of the wound: identical to the width of a
mountain bike tire, which doesn't match any shoe.
===
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

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:47:44 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
m...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc wrote:

MattB wrote:
cc wrote:
GeeDubb wrote:


"MattB" wrote in message
...

Wow. Scary!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16817149/

Glad he got away alive.

Matt

"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
north
of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
attack
happened.

The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
either animal mauled the man"


That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same
lion.
Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
which a park should represent . . . sheesh.

Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
the
first ones they could get.
I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was
me,
my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the
food
chain was designed to work.

Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search
and
destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals
that
behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
should do?

cc

No. Close the park permanently to humans.
===
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


Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing these
numbers?

It's obvious.

A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it.
Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions of cyclists
is evident in your statement of OPINION.

But it's TRUE.
No. It is your OPINION that off-road cyclists can not ride AND see their
surroundings and obstacles (IE: wildlife on trail)
You attempt to use your limited experience of off-road cycling as a factor
in determining how everyone else must perceive it.
That is evident as your OPINION is constantly used in place of FACT.

There are examples in zoological museums.

What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?

You can tell by the width of the wound: identical to the width of a
mountain bike tire, which doesn't match any shoe.
Really...? The existence of what you say is a mountain bike tire mark proves
they were killed by mountain bikers....?
You do not even entertain the POSSIBILITY they were dead before the marks
were made...

Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
===

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:40:08 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 17:47:44 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
om...
On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc wrote:

MattB wrote:
cc wrote:
GeeDubb wrote:


"MattB" wrote in message
...

Wow. Scary!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16817149/

Glad he got away alive.

Matt

"After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
north
of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
attack
happened.

The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
either animal mauled the man"


That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same
lion.
Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
which a park should represent . . . sheesh.

Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
the
first ones they could get.
I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was
me,
my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the
food
chain was designed to work.

Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search
and
destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals
that
behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
should do?

cc

No. Close the park permanently to humans.
===
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


Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing these
numbers?

It's obvious.

A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it.
Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions of cyclists
is evident in your statement of OPINION.

But it's TRUE.
No.

I have seen the dead snakes that prove it.

It is your OPINION that off-road cyclists can not ride AND see their
surroundings and obstacles (IE: wildlife on trail)
You attempt to use your limited experience of off-road cycling as a factor
in determining how everyone else must perceive it.
That is evident as your OPINION is constantly used in place of FACT.

There are examples in zoological museums.

What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?

You can tell by the width of the wound: identical to the width of a
mountain bike tire, which doesn't match any shoe.
Really...? The existence of what you say is a mountain bike tire mark proves
they were killed by mountain bikers....?
You do not even entertain the POSSIBILITY they were dead before the marks
were made...

Not likely. I have NEVER seen a dead snake there, until one was killed
by a mountain biker.

Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
===

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

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

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:40:08 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing these
numbers?

It's obvious.
No - It isn't OBVIOUS unless that is all you want to see.

A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it.
Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions of
cyclists
is evident in your statement of OPINION.

But it's TRUE.
No.

I have seen the dead snakes that prove it.

Where is the PROOF? Where are the photos? Where are the witnesses that saw
the cyclist hit a LIVE snake? Where is the documentation showing the only
possible cause was a cyclist?
WHERE IS IT?

It is your OPINION that off-road cyclists can not ride AND see their
surroundings and obstacles (IE: wildlife on trail)
You attempt to use your limited experience of off-road cycling as a factor
in determining how everyone else must perceive it.
That is evident as your OPINION is constantly used in place of FACT.

There are examples in zoological museums.

What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?

You can tell by the width of the wound: identical to the width of a
mountain bike tire, which doesn't match any shoe.
Really...? The existence of what you say is a mountain bike tire mark
proves
they were killed by mountain bikers....?
You do not even entertain the POSSIBILITY they were dead before the marks
were made...

Not likely. I have NEVER seen a dead snake there, until one was killed
by a mountain biker.
Did YOU SEE the cyclist hit it? Who else was present? Do you have
corroboration? Do you have PROOF it was not already dead from some other
cause? Where is the PROOF the only possible cause was a cyclist?
This is, as it has always been, an example you CLAIM proves off-road cyclist
behavior but you have no REAL EVIDENCE. Your word means NOTHING.

Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
STILL NO ANSWER TO DIRECT QUESTIONS ON POINT AND PROOF.
And that speaks VOLUMES on your credibility as a LIAR.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:47:33 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:


"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:40:08 -0500, "S Curtiss"
wrote:

Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing these
numbers?

It's obvious.
No - It isn't OBVIOUS unless that is all you want to see.

A hiker can and
will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it.
Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions of
cyclists
is evident in your statement of OPINION.

But it's TRUE.
No.

I have seen the dead snakes that prove it.

Where is the PROOF? Where are the photos? Where are the witnesses that saw
the cyclist hit a LIVE snake? Where is the documentation showing the only
possible cause was a cyclist?
WHERE IS IT?

Obviously, you don't really care.

It is your OPINION that off-road cyclists can not ride AND see their
surroundings and obstacles (IE: wildlife on trail)
You attempt to use your limited experience of off-road cycling as a factor
in determining how everyone else must perceive it.
That is evident as your OPINION is constantly used in place of FACT.

There are examples in zoological museums.

What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?

You can tell by the width of the wound: identical to the width of a
mountain bike tire, which doesn't match any shoe.
Really...? The existence of what you say is a mountain bike tire mark
proves
they were killed by mountain bikers....?
You do not even entertain the POSSIBILITY they were dead before the marks
were made...

Not likely. I have NEVER seen a dead snake there, until one was killed
by a mountain biker.
Did YOU SEE the cyclist hit it? Who else was present? Do you have
corroboration? Do you have PROOF it was not already dead from some other
cause? Where is the PROOF the only possible cause was a cyclist?

The biologist who examined it agrees that it was killed by a mountain
biker. There is no other possible answer.

This is, as it has always been, an example you CLAIM proves off-road cyclist
behavior but you have no REAL EVIDENCE. Your word means NOTHING.

Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
were
definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
STILL NO ANSWER TO DIRECT QUESTIONS ON POINT AND PROOF.
And that speaks VOLUMES on your credibility as 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