#91
|
|||
|
|||
"Divisive Issue"
On 8 Mar 2007 09:22:21 -0800, Bob Berger wrote:
In article , Mike Vandeman says... On 7 Mar 2007 09:30:44 -0800, Bob Berger wrote: In article , Mike Vandeman says... On 5 Mar 2007 08:01:40 -0800, Bob Berger wrote: In article , Mike Vandeman says... On 4 Mar 2007 08:55:37 -0800, Bob Berger wrote: In article , Mike Vandeman says... On 3 Mar 2007 12:38:49 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote: On Mar 2, 11:13 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: "... his dominance and his faculties for upsetting so much of the rest of life serve to rule him out of what we think of as 'natural' relationships of living things". Paul Errington, p.41. That's merely Errington's opinion based on his observations. I don't agree with him. Man's superior reasoning abilities give him an advantage over other animals, but do not take him out of the natural equation. So you have NO facts and NO expert opinion to back you up. Your opinion is worthless without EVIDENCE. I don't need to quote someone else to express my opinion based upon my observation. The world did not develop in the absence of man. As man developed, his dominance over the world, for better or worse, increased. It is not realistic or intellectually honest to view man as some extranatural being. I didn't say that, liar. But his presence outside his natural habitat IS unnatural. You are just trying to rationalize what is not rationalizable. Humans are an exotic invasive species. Get over it. Your opinion carries no weight whatsoever. Don't get the terms "exotic" and "invasive" confused. A predator that naturally expands his range into an area where he did not previously exist may be invasive, but he is not exotic. You missed the point. It IS exotic. You can't become a native species the day you arrive! DUH! I know of no one else, and certainly no scientists, who would accept your definition of what an exotic species is. Besides, there is nothing magic in being a native species. I never said there is. But I have given that paper at several scientific conferences, and not one person objected to my definition. So you are just WRONG. Early man expanded his range into North America, for example, in search of better food and shelter - natural drives. For a species to be considered exotic requires the intervention of man, either intentionally or unintentionally. I know that you don't accept that definition, but scientists do. It's a definition that makes no sense (HOW you arrive isn't relevant to your impacts). Humans also apply it inconsistently, because they exclude humans (without explicitly saying so). The definition of exotic says nothing about impacts, just how an organism got here. As well as how long it has been there. One of the problems with your personal definition of exotic species is that, at least relative to North America, not only are humans exotics, but so are very many other larger mammals living here today; for example, the gray wolf. What's wrong with that? By being redefined so broadly (1,000,000 years in the new area before a species is considered not an exotic) the term loses its ability to communicate to the reader the condition it is customarily intended to describe. My suggestion would have been for you to create a new term rather than redefine an existing one. Why? Because it causes confusion. Others don't know that you're using a personal definition, and thus are likely to missintrpret the implications what you're saying. My definition is reasonable and fills a void. Is it reasonable? I'm not sure. What is the biological or environmental justification for the 1,000,000 year value? Why is that better than, say, 100,000 years or 5,000,000 years? Please respond to this question. Also, it appears that your 1,000,000 year value operates as a binary switch; less than that value: exotic, that value or mo not exotic. If so, is that reasonable? Please respond to this question. Was the reintroduction to the Yellowstone area of the gray wolf by the NPS the right thing to do considering that the gray wolf is an exotic in that region? "RE-introduction" tells me that it IS a native, but was just recently extirpated from the area. The same goes for the California Grizzly. It should be restored, as best we can (i.e., the closest relative). But the gray wolf (canis lupus), which is native to Eurasia, didn't enter North America until 300,000 or less years ago. It is thus, by your definition of the term (must be present in the new area for 1,000,000+ years), an exotic. You catch on quick. Why in this case should the gray wolf be considered native (not an exotic) to the Yellowstone region? It's a matter of degree. They may want to restore an extirpated species, in which case they have little choice but an exotic. This isn't a theoretical example. It happened. The gray wolf (canis lupus) was an exotic species (by your definition) in the Yellowstone region. Humans eradicated it. The NPS later reintroduced the exact same exotic species, canis lupus. Why is that an acceptable action under your definition? Please respond to this question. I suggest that a binary switch "clock time in area" test isn't a good metric by which to measure the exoticness of a species. It's interesting that you haven't offered any reasonable alternative. Nor any jiustification. That will come in due time, if necessary. Right now, I'm trying to learn your justification for the 1,000,000 year value, how you apply it, and (under your definition) what ramifications being an exotic species has. It was with that in mind that I asked you, above, to respond to the three questions I posed in my previous post to which you did not respond. Because I answered that in http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb4. Besides, it doesn't matter, since humans only got to North America about 10,000-20,000 years ago -- NOT 100,000. Bob === 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 === 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 |
Ads |
#92
|
|||
|
|||
"Divisive Issue"
On Mar 8, 9:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote:
On 8 Mar 2007 09:58:31 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote: On Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote: I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the point very well: "The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals, whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die", and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version, Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species bad." BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before putting your foot in your mouth again. Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the fourth grade. Now, back to the discussion. You seem to think that, without man around, the world's wildlife would be in some sort of equilibrium. Their never was, and never will be, this peaceable kingdom you envision. The lion will always eat the lamb and when he has killed all the lambs in his neck of the savannah, he will move on to where there are more lambs. I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just telling the truth. Here you go again, fabricating stories that have nothing to do with me. That's normally called "lying". As to the fourth grade, your grasp of basic biology isn't even there yet. All I have said is that the presence of humans is harmful to wildlife -- something that is indisputable. Reality is a foreign concept to you, isn't it Mike? Keep on building those straw men and patting yourself on the back for kicking them down. You are impressing no one and doing no good for the wildlife you pretend to be trying to protect. I'm going to o play with my grandchildren. |
#93
|
|||
|
|||
"Divisive Issue"
On 9 Mar 2007 04:14:33 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote:
On Mar 8, 9:02 pm, Mike Vandeman wrote: On 8 Mar 2007 09:58:31 -0800, "Olebiker" wrote: On Mar 8, 11:50 am, Mike Vandeman wrote: I cut this from another post on this topic. I thought it stated the point very well: "The problem here is that "right" is a human concept, animals, whether native or invasive have no concept of it. Might makes right is one of the most basic laws of nature, along with "adapt or die", and "everything that lives, dies", nature is not harmonious or peaceful, it is brutal and murderous, we're just the latest version, Killer, V.25. all species in any location were once "invasive" and it's only for our own convenience that we declare invasive species bad." BS. It's for the benefit of native species. Learn some biology, before putting your foot in your mouth again. Mike, you are convincing no one of your opinion by insulting those of us who are trying to have a civil discussion with you. This is not the fourth grade. Now, back to the discussion. You seem to think that, without man around, the world's wildlife would be in some sort of equilibrium. Their never was, and never will be, this peaceable kingdom you envision. The lion will always eat the lamb and when he has killed all the lambs in his neck of the savannah, he will move on to where there are more lambs. I'm not insulting anyone. I'm just telling the truth. Here you go again, fabricating stories that have nothing to do with me. That's normally called "lying". As to the fourth grade, your grasp of basic biology isn't even there yet. All I have said is that the presence of humans is harmful to wildlife -- something that is indisputable. Reality is a foreign concept to you, isn't it Mike? Keep on building those straw men and patting yourself on the back for kicking them down. You are impressing no one and doing no good for the wildlife you pretend to be trying to protect. I'm going to o play with my grandchildren. Good. Ask them to teach you something about basic biology, while you're at it. === 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 |
#94
|
|||
|
|||
"Divisive Issue"
"Olebiker" wrote that emerged from the proverbial primordial ooze in North America... Why bring Rush Limbaugh into the conversation? |
#95
|
|||
|
|||
"Divisive Issue"
"Olebiker" wrote in message Why would you consider the Paleo- Indians who crossed the Bering Strait around 40,000 years ago any different than other animals? Oh, perhaps it's because the human ape has assigned to itself moral dominion over all other living things and demands the right to murder any living thing it deems unworthy of existance. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! | Bill Baka | General | 0 | May 29th 06 12:10 AM |
Vandeman calls mountain bikers "liars" and "criminals" then surprised by hate mail! | tom | Mountain Biking | 0 | May 16th 06 04:22 AM |
R.I.P. Jim Price (aka. "biker_billy", "sydney", "Boudreaux") | spin156 | Techniques | 15 | November 28th 05 07:21 PM |
FS: New issue of "Out Your Backdoor"---with HPV stories | [email protected] | Recumbent Biking | 0 | August 24th 05 03:42 PM |
FS: New issue of "Out Your Backdoor" for bike culture and MUCH more! | [email protected] | Marketplace | 0 | August 24th 05 03:17 PM |