The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife

On Mar 24, 7:29 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., wildlife activisthttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
September 21, 2003

Sorry, Mike - I am partly with you on the mountain bikes, but not on
this one. Without the GP on your side, you will not get any habitat
preservation - and without the direct ability to appreciate the
natural world, you will not the get the GP on your side.

I use the Bay Trail every day. I never kill any creatures, not even
insects (except the occasional fly that enters my mouth) - and I see
myriad creatures that use the area without concern about me, and I see
huge additional opportunities to make the habitat better for some
species that are on the edge of extinction - and none of these
opportunities would suffer from the presence of the trail.

Not only that, but owing to the increased awareness by the GP of the
state of the wetlands around the Bay, in large part because of the
access available to people so they can see firsthand, there are large
tracts of compromised wetlands that are being restored to their former
glory - areas where least terns and snowy plovers may one day have
safe havens, where flocks of thousands of birds will someday have a
home, and where humans can observe and appreciate them from a
reasonable distance.

Mike, let's face it, it isn't the recreationists by and large that
screw up the habitat - it's the clearcutters and open pit miners and,
especially in the arid west, the grazers, who really push out the wild
critters and louse up the habitat. The animals in Yellowstone, where
the habitat itself is largely intact, are doing pretty damn well
despite the proloferation of human recreation, and would do a hell of
alot better if it weren't for the miserable ******* ranchers in
Montana and Wyoming and Idaho who didn't hate every animal that eats
or competes with their precious hooved locusts.

You need to pick your opponents more carefully. Tilting with the
little guy over their drops in the bucket compared to what the
juggernauts wreak is a wasted, misspent effort.

Bruce Jensen

Well said Bruce! Mikey wont agree with a word of it because it does not
reflect his position. His position, and only his position, is the only
'truths' as far as he is concerned.

You will be called a liar, or completely ignored.


"Bruce Jensen" wrote in
oups.com:

On Mar 24, 7:29 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., wildlife
activisthttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande September 21, 2003

Sorry, Mike - I am partly with you on the mountain bikes, but not on
this one. Without the GP on your side, you will not get any habitat
preservation - and without the direct ability to appreciate the
natural world, you will not the get the GP on your side.

I use the Bay Trail every day. I never kill any creatures, not even
insects (except the occasional fly that enters my mouth) - and I see
myriad creatures that use the area without concern about me, and I see
huge additional opportunities to make the habitat better for some
species that are on the edge of extinction - and none of these
opportunities would suffer from the presence of the trail.

Not only that, but owing to the increased awareness by the GP of the
state of the wetlands around the Bay, in large part because of the
access available to people so they can see firsthand, there are large
tracts of compromised wetlands that are being restored to their former
glory - areas where least terns and snowy plovers may one day have
safe havens, where flocks of thousands of birds will someday have a
home, and where humans can observe and appreciate them from a
reasonable distance.

Mike, let's face it, it isn't the recreationists by and large that
screw up the habitat - it's the clearcutters and open pit miners and,
especially in the arid west, the grazers, who really push out the wild
critters and louse up the habitat. The animals in Yellowstone, where
the habitat itself is largely intact, are doing pretty damn well
despite the proloferation of human recreation, and would do a hell of
alot better if it weren't for the miserable ******* ranchers in
Montana and Wyoming and Idaho who didn't hate every animal that eats
or competes with their precious hooved locusts.

You need to pick your opponents more carefully. Tilting with the
little guy over their drops in the bucket compared to what the
juggernauts wreak is a wasted, misspent effort.

Bruce Jensen



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 26 Mar 2007 05:31:24 -0700, "Olebiker" wrote:

On Mar 25, 9:41 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
You are LYING. Wildlife is NOT "thriving" about a quarter of the
world's wildlife are in danger of extinction. That is not what I would
call "thriving".

They are not endangered simply due to contact with humans.

I never said they are. But it is certainly a major impact, and when
1/4 of the world's species are in danger of extinction, we can't
afford ANY threats. Or LYING about wildlife "thriving". Look it up in
the dictionary, before you use it again.

They are
not domesticated and still scurry away if we get to close. They do
that with predators as they always have, but that contact with
predators did not kill them off.

Yes, itr does. What do you think a predator is, anyway?!
Contact with humans is no lessdeadly.

We're talking about whole species here, Mike, not individual animals.
Individual animals have always been killed by predators without entire
species being killed off.

Predators certainly don't help. Nor does human presence. Both restrict
usable habitat.

While growing up in Kentucky I never saw deer or wild turkeys on our
farm, even though the food and cover were plentiful. As a young man,
I started seeing them, but they spooked easily and we only caught
fleeting glimpses of them. Now, when you go to that farm, deer and
turkeys are everywhere and do not take flight unless we get very close
to them.

And that proves? NOTHING. That two species have a certain amount of
tolerance for humans. That doesn't mean that they are benefitting from
that contact.

Whether our presence is beneficial to them or not is not what we are
discussing here. What we are talking about is whether our presence
necessarily endangers whole species.

Endangerment has many contributing factors. The presence of humans is
one of them. Loss of habitat is the greatest factor. The presence of
humans makes habitat unavailable or less effective, contributing to
extinction. Besides, extinction isn't the only concern about wildlife.
Loss of biodiversity is also important.

I trust what I see happening in nature,

You haven't proved that any of those species benefit from the presence
of humans.

You are trying to reframe the discussion into whether our presence is
beneficial to wildlife.

Of course. That's a major factor harming wildlife.

not what you tell me is

happening. Put the books down and get outside, Mike.
Anecdotal evidence is not science. REAL biologists acknowledge the
negative impact that the presence of humans has (read the books I
referenced).

Over the years I have checked many of the books you reference,
especially your bible, "Wildlife and Recreationists." I have never
found any scientific evidence in any of those books supporting your
claim that wildlife need territory off limits to humans.

Then you don't know how to think. That book catalogs several ways in
which the PRESENCE OF HUMANS harms wildlife. The only way to eliminate
that harm is to remove humans. DUH!
===
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 26 Mar 2007 09:04:36 -0700, "Bruce Jensen"
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:29 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., wildlife activisthttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
September 21, 2003

Sorry, Mike - I am partly with you on the mountain bikes, but not on
this one. Without the GP on your side, you will not get any habitat
preservation - and without the direct ability to appreciate the
natural world, you will not the get the GP on your side.

But the Bay Trail, with its destruction of habitat and increasing
human presence near important habitat, isn't essential to getting the
public to support wildlife or wilderness. We have somehow managed to
protect wildlife and habitat for decades, without the Bay Trail!

I use the Bay Trail every day. I never kill any creatures, not even
insects (except the occasional fly that enters my mouth) - and I see
myriad creatures that use the area without concern about me, and I see
huge additional opportunities to make the habitat better for some
species that are on the edge of extinction - and none of these
opportunities would suffer from the presence of the trail.

That's not scientific. You DON'T see the wildlife that has been driven
away by the presence of humans. Anecdotal evidence like that is
irrelevant.

Not only that, but owing to the increased awareness by the GP of the
state of the wetlands around the Bay, in large part because of the
access available to people so they can see firsthand, there are large
tracts of compromised wetlands that are being restored to their former
glory - areas where least terns and snowy plovers may one day have
safe havens, where flocks of thousands of birds will someday have a
home, and where humans can observe and appreciate them from a
reasonable distance.

None of that is due to the Bay Trail. It started long before the Bay
Trail was invented.

Mike, let's face it, it isn't the recreationists by and large that
screw up the habitat - it's the clearcutters and open pit miners and,
especially in the arid west, the grazers, who really push out the wild
critters and louse up the habitat. The animals in Yellowstone, where
the habitat itself is largely intact, are doing pretty damn well
despite the proloferation of human recreation,

Not the bison. Not the grizzlies. Not the wolves. They would all be
better off without people around.

and would do a hell of
alot better if it weren't for the miserable ******* ranchers in
Montana and Wyoming and Idaho who didn't hate every animal that eats
or competes with their precious hooved locusts.

You need to pick your opponents more carefully. Tilting with the
little guy over their drops in the bucket compared to what the
juggernauts wreak is a wasted, misspent effort.

You missed the point completely. The Bay Trail is just one example,
which I used to make the point that recreation IS a major factor
harming wildlife. "Take care of the pennies, and the dollars will take
care of themselves."

The only way to protect willdife is to prevent ALL forms of harm, not
just the politically correct ones.
Bruce Jensen
===
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 Mar 26, 5:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 09:04:36 -0700, "Bruce Jensen"
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:29 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., wildlife activisthttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
September 21, 2003

Sorry, Mike - I am partly with you on the mountain bikes, but not on
this one. Without the GP on your side, you will not get any habitat
preservation - and without the direct ability to appreciate the
natural world, you will not the get the GP on your side.

But the Bay Trail, with its destruction of habitat and increasing
human presence near important habitat, isn't essential to getting the
public to support wildlife or wilderness. We have somehow managed to
protect wildlife and habitat for decades, without the Bay Trail!

I use the Bay Trail every day. I never kill any creatures, not even
insects (except the occasional fly that enters my mouth) - and I see
myriad creatures that use the area without concern about me, and I see
huge additional opportunities to make the habitat better for some
species that are on the edge of extinction - and none of these
opportunities would suffer from the presence of the trail.

That's not scientific. You DON'T see the wildlife that has been driven
away by the presence of humans. Anecdotal evidence like that is
irrelevant.

Not only that, but owing to the increased awareness by the GP of the
state of the wetlands around the Bay, in large part because of the
access available to people so they can see firsthand, there are large
tracts of compromised wetlands that are being restored to their former
glory - areas where least terns and snowy plovers may one day have
safe havens, where flocks of thousands of birds will someday have a
home, and where humans can observe and appreciate them from a
reasonable distance.

None of that is due to the Bay Trail. It started long before the Bay
Trail was invented.

Mike, let's face it, it isn't the recreationists by and large that
screw up the habitat - it's the clearcutters and open pit miners and,
especially in the arid west, the grazers, who really push out the wild
critters and louse up the habitat. The animals in Yellowstone, where
the habitat itself is largely intact, are doing pretty damn well
despite the proloferation of human recreation,

Not the bison. Not the grizzlies. Not the wolves. They would all be
better off without people around.

and would do a hell of

alot better if it weren't for the miserable ******* ranchers in
Montana and Wyoming and Idaho who didn't hate every animal that eats
or competes with their precious hooved locusts.

You need to pick your opponents more carefully. Tilting with the
little guy over their drops in the bucket compared to what the
juggernauts wreak is a wasted, misspent effort.

You missed the point completely. The Bay Trail is just one example,
which I used to make the point that recreation IS a major factor
harming wildlife. "Take care of the pennies, and the dollars will take
care of themselves."

The only way to protect willdife is to prevent ALL forms of harm, not
just the politically correct ones.

I am embarrassed to say that I just wrote a long response to this
message, and hit the wrong button, which sent the whole thing off
into nothingland.

However, the jist was:

- You have never been out there to see the massive and amazing
diversity and numbers of creatures who inhabit the wetlands near the
trail. Virtually everything except grizz, elk and sea otters are out
there (and none of these were lost due to passive recreation or a
trail), and in vibrant numbers...even salt marsh harvest mice leats
terns and snowy plovers. There is plenty of room too enhance those
habitats too.

- You cannot point to a single species that has suffered as a result
of the trail being there, and several have thrived since it has been
in place (on top of old historic levees that have always been used).

- The loss of animals here, and anywhere, is largely the result of
human industry and hunting and not passive recreation, and there is
plenty of evidence to back it up.

- You frankly don't know what you're talking about WRT Yellowstone, so
give it up. I will talk you into the ground on that topic.

- You need to get out of your ivory tower and go see how badly all of
these wetland species are really doing.

- If you want people on your side, you will let them see the fruits of
their protective labors.

- You are fiddling while Rome burns. Watch pennies and the $$$ will
take care of themselves? Bah - poppycock. Our wilderness is being
frigging wrecked and dismantled and ruined by timber and grazing and
drilling and desertification while you worry about the effect of a
thread of a trail on a large, vital, growing wetland. Your priorities
are misplaced and misguided.

- I will be happy to go out there WITH YOU, binos and spotting scope
in hand, so you can show me firsthand the hundreds of thousands of
creatures (which we WILL see) who are suffering because we are
watching them. Contacting me is not hard - I am at the Alameda County
Planning Dept. in Hayward.

Bruce Jensen

Mike,
He invited you to actually GO SEE the issue first hand. Why not take
him up??

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On 27 Mar 2007 08:40:14 -0700, "Bruce Jensen"
wrote:

On Mar 26, 5:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 26 Mar 2007 09:04:36 -0700, "Bruce Jensen"
wrote:

On Mar 24, 7:29 am, Mike Vandeman wrote:
The Bay Trail -- A Disaster for Wildlife
Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D., wildlife activisthttp://home.pacbell.net/mjvande
September 21, 2003

Sorry, Mike - I am partly with you on the mountain bikes, but not on
this one. Without the GP on your side, you will not get any habitat
preservation - and without the direct ability to appreciate the
natural world, you will not the get the GP on your side.

But the Bay Trail, with its destruction of habitat and increasing
human presence near important habitat, isn't essential to getting the
public to support wildlife or wilderness. We have somehow managed to
protect wildlife and habitat for decades, without the Bay Trail!

I use the Bay Trail every day. I never kill any creatures, not even
insects (except the occasional fly that enters my mouth) - and I see
myriad creatures that use the area without concern about me, and I see
huge additional opportunities to make the habitat better for some
species that are on the edge of extinction - and none of these
opportunities would suffer from the presence of the trail.

That's not scientific. You DON'T see the wildlife that has been driven
away by the presence of humans. Anecdotal evidence like that is
irrelevant.

Not only that, but owing to the increased awareness by the GP of the
state of the wetlands around the Bay, in large part because of the
access available to people so they can see firsthand, there are large
tracts of compromised wetlands that are being restored to their former
glory - areas where least terns and snowy plovers may one day have
safe havens, where flocks of thousands of birds will someday have a
home, and where humans can observe and appreciate them from a
reasonable distance.

None of that is due to the Bay Trail. It started long before the Bay
Trail was invented.

Mike, let's face it, it isn't the recreationists by and large that
screw up the habitat - it's the clearcutters and open pit miners and,
especially in the arid west, the grazers, who really push out the wild
critters and louse up the habitat. The animals in Yellowstone, where
the habitat itself is largely intact, are doing pretty damn well
despite the proloferation of human recreation,

Not the bison. Not the grizzlies. Not the wolves. They would all be
better off without people around.

and would do a hell of

alot better if it weren't for the miserable ******* ranchers in
Montana and Wyoming and Idaho who didn't hate every animal that eats
or competes with their precious hooved locusts.

You need to pick your opponents more carefully. Tilting with the
little guy over their drops in the bucket compared to what the
juggernauts wreak is a wasted, misspent effort.

You missed the point completely. The Bay Trail is just one example,
which I used to make the point that recreation IS a major factor
harming wildlife. "Take care of the pennies, and the dollars will take
care of themselves."

The only way to protect willdife is to prevent ALL forms of harm, not
just the politically correct ones.

I am embarrassed to say that I just wrote a long response to this
message, and hit the wrong button, which sent the whole thing off
into nothingland.

However, the jist was:

- You have never been out there to see the massive and amazing
diversity and numbers of creatures who inhabit the wetlands near the
trail. Virtually everything except grizz, elk and sea otters are out
there (and none of these were lost due to passive recreation or a
trail), and in vibrant numbers...even salt marsh harvest mice leats
terns and snowy plovers. There is plenty of room too enhance those
habitats too.

As I said, anecdotal evidence is irrelevant.

- You cannot point to a single species that has suffered as a result
of the trail being there, and several have thrived since it has been
in place (on top of old historic levees that have always been used).

You have no way of knowing that, unless you compare with pre-human
numbers.

- The loss of animals here, and anywhere, is largely the result of
human industry and hunting and not passive recreation, and there is
plenty of evidence to back it up.

- You frankly don't know what you're talking about WRT Yellowstone, so
give it up. I will talk you into the ground on that topic.

- You need to get out of your ivory tower and go see how badly all of
these wetland species are really doing.

- If you want people on your side, you will let them see the fruits of
their protective labors.

- You are fiddling while Rome burns. Watch pennies and the $$$ will
take care of themselves? Bah - poppycock. Our wilderness is being
frigging wrecked and dismantled and ruined by timber and grazing and
drilling and desertification while you worry about the effect of a
thread of a trail on a large, vital, growing wetland. Your priorities
are misplaced and misguided.

Your "priorities" are conveniently tailored to accomodate your
preferred form of recreation -- typical of humans: always
rationalizing what they want to do and backing it up with ZERO
science.

- I will be happy to go out there WITH YOU, binos and spotting scope
in hand, so you can show me firsthand the hundreds of thousands of
creatures (which we WILL see) who are suffering because we are
watching them.

Irrelevant. Unless you are doing science, you are proving nothing.

Contacting me is not hard - I am at the Alameda County
Planning Dept. in Hayward.

That explains a lot. Hayward is the armpit of Alameda County. E.g.
there is NO safe bike route from Hayward BART to West Winton Ave. The
bayshore in Hayward is a dump. Literally! Plan THAT! Tell me about how
the wildlife are "thriving" in the midst of all the broken glass....
And about how bicycle-friendly Hayward is....

Bruce Jensen
===
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

....

....