Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!

Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans!
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D.
October 12, 1997

"Of what avail are forty freedoms, without a blank spot on the map?"
Aldo Leopold

"For every living creature [including humans!], there are places where
it does not belong." p.251 "I believe it is a public responsibility to
safeguard what we can of wilderness before the great push of man's
numbers; and to safeguard with it ... the shy wild ones that need
man-less expanses in which to thrive." p.262. Paul L. Errington, Of
Predation and Life

"I confess to further disquieting thoughts as to how much moral right
man actually has to regard the Earth as his exclusive possession, to
despoil or befoul as he will. Man has or should have some minimal
responsibility toward the Earth he claims and toward the other forms
of life that have been on the Earth as long as or longer than he has."
Paul Errington, A Question of Values, p.153.

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.

When I enjoy nature, I feel that I incur a debt. What better
way to repay that debt, than to grant wildlife a human-free habitat --
to which they were adapted and accustomed for 4 billion years?! 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:

Boyle, Stephen A. and Fred B. Samson, Nonconsumptive Outdoor
Recreation: An Annotated Bibliography of Human-Wildlife Interactions.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife
Service Special Scientific Report -- Wildlife No. 252, 1983.

Ehrlich, Paul R. and Ehrlich, Anne H., Extinction: The Causes and
Consequences of the Disappearances of Species. New York: Random House,
1981.

Errington, Paul L., Of Predation and Life. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press, 1967.

Errington, Paul L., A Question of Values. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press, 1987.

Foreman, Dave, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior. New York: Harmony Books,
1991.

Grumbine, R. Edward, Ghost Bears. Washington, DC: Island Press, 1992.

Hammitt, William E. and David N. Cole, Wildland Recreation -- Ecology
and Management. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1987.

Harrod, Howard L., The Animals Came Dancing. Tucson: University of
Arizona Press, 2000.

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.

Pryde, Philip R., Conservation in the Soviet Union. London: Cambridge
University Press, 1972.

Reed, Sarah E. and Adina M. Merenlender, "Quiet, Nonconsumptive
Recreation Reduces Protected Area Effectiveness". Conservation
Letters, 2008, 1-9.

Stone, Christopher D., Should Trees Have Standing? Toward Legal Rights
for Natural Objects. Los Altos, California: William Kaufmann, Inc.,
1973.

Terborgh, John, Carel van Schaik, Lisa Davenport, and Madhu Rao, eds.,
Making Parks Work. Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2002.

Vandeman, Michael J.,
http://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles and
http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande, 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.

Weiner, Douglas R., A Little Corner of Freedom. Russian Nature
Protection from Stalin to Gorbachev. Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1999.

"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.
--
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 Aug 25, 10:54*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.


You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!

On Aug 25, 10:19*am, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:54*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.

You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!

At least he's not reproducing (least I don't think he is ;-)

Bruce Jensen

"Bruce Jensen" wrote in message
...
On Aug 25, 10:19 am, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:54 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.

You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!

At least he's not reproducing (least I don't think he is ;-)

Bruce Jensen


His personality is the best form of birth control there is.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:52:00 -0700 (PDT), Bruce Jensen
wrote:

On Aug 25, 10:19*am, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:54*am, Mike Vandeman wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.

You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!

At least he's not reproducing (least I don't think he is ;-)

Bruce Jensen

Men NEVER know for sure, do we?
--
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 Aug 25, 1:19*pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 25, wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.

You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!


Here's a link showing the address Mikey lists on his demented
scribbling. http://www.neuroquantology.com/journ...e/view/122/116

If I could only find a printer that is capable of printing on toilet
paper, then his scribblings would have a useful
purpose..........................

On Aug 30, 10:39*pm, " wrote:
On Aug 25, 1:19*pm, Siskuwihane wrote:

On Aug 25, wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.

You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!

Here's a link showing the address Mikey lists on his demented
scribbling. *http://www.neuroquantology.com/journ...e/view/122/116

That's a business address, there is a large office complex at that
location and Pacific Bell has offices there as well as many other
companies.

I'd bet Mikey is using his work address now.

On Aug 30, 11:05*pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:39*pm, " wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:19*pm, Siskuwihane wrote:

On Aug 25, wrote:

I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.

You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!

Here's a link showing the address Mikey lists on his demented
scribbling. *http://www.neuroquantology.com/journ...e/view/122/116

That's a business address, there is a large office complex at that
location and Pacific Bell has offices there as well as many other
companies.

I'd bet Mikey is using his work address now.

Do a reverse phone number search for yourself. Mike is listing a
Pacific Bell number as his contact number too. He is not only a liar
due to being a MTBer. He is also a thief stealing by wasting company
time doing personal things when he should be EARNING his paycheck by
working in a productive manner. The man has no shame..........

wrote:
On Aug 30, 11:05 pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 30, 10:39 pm, " wrote:

On Aug 25, 1:19 pm, Siskuwihane wrote:
On Aug 25, 10:54 wrote:
I am experimenting with setting aside a 20 x 20 foot area in my back yard
as pure habitat.
You should tear down your house and give them the whole lot but you
won't because you are SELFISH!
Here's a link showing the address Mikey lists on his demented
scribbling. http://www.neuroquantology.com/journ...e/view/122/116
That's a business address, there is a large office complex at that
location and Pacific Bell has offices there as well as many other
companies.

I'd bet Mikey is using his work address now.

Do a reverse phone number search for yourself. Mike is listing a
Pacific Bell number as his contact number too. He is not only a liar
due to being a MTBer. He is also a thief stealing by wasting company
time doing personal things when he should be EARNING his paycheck by
working in a productive manner. The man has no shame..........

Considering that Mikey has reported others to their employers for using
company email for personal business, what does that make him?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken /
She shipped it off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”