User group cooperation key to success

It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further
information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the recreational
use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental effects on
wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl, continue to whittle
away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife onto a smaller
footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the variety in genetic
possibilities for many of the species. In regards to recreation, it also
forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of protection for the wildlife
and access for human recreation in natural areas for their own health and
"peace of mind" benefits. While some continue to cling to ideas that some
forms of recreation are "better" than others or that some forms of
recreation be restricted or banned, it proves to be counter-productive.
These arguments focus on human access into an ever decreasing footprint
which causes friction between "user groups" that would be better served to
maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt the sprawl that decreases
available space in the first place.

This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as shown
below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside sources
and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense".

A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting,
June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or
systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The
website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these
presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough
information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE
UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was
split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000 ha
was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The
conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge, plus
the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in bobcat
activity:

"The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition,
and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section
where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per
100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may
reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion
may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the
highway."

Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION
ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows that "biodiversity
conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife preservation in many ways.
First, it is the primary goal of national wildlife refuges so the larger
focus of effort is on biodiversity and preservation. This is important to
realize as these areas have a large area footprint but are still finite in
their borders. In regards to recreational use, this is also a concern as
other areas continue to be threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes
available space outside of these refuges. The refuges then become even more
a concern as the habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study
recognizes four segments of the government land system. These are the
National Wildlife Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National
Park System, and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific
goals, guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that
represents the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and
protects the greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The
other areas of management allow for any number of activities from recreation
to resource extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an
extent. In comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or
natural area decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must
result in more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While
not the stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the
spread of human construction is the central component of decreased natural
area and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study
upon habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF
THE GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA: LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear
result that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within
any given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity.

Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning
wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend
highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of
outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of
preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF
ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY
WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming. Visits
to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in
correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games,
computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With a
decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern. How
valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being
utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a
country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons
concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make
cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these
areas beyond another rooftop.

It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect
wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may
consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their discussion,
these persons often alienate a large voice that would otherwise be in league
with their efforts. Some of these discussions of preservation often discard
recreation as non-essential to the goals they pursue. This continues to
prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As the footprint of habitat is
decreased, the stress on wildlife is only increased. That is a "given".
However, the allowance of diversity in recreation in many of these areas
creates an economic foundation for preservation as well as an interested and
diverse human voice to speak for it.

S Curtiss

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05...
It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further
information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the
recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental
effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl,
continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife
onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the
variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to
recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of
protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural
areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some
continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than
others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves
to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an
ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that
would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt
the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place.

This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as
shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside
sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense".

A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting,
June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or
systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The
website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these
presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough
information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE
UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was
split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000
ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The
conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge,
plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in
bobcat activity:

"The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition,
and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section
where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per
100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may
reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion
may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the
highway."

Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows
that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife
preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national
wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and
preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large
area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to
recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be
threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside
of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the
habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four
segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals,
guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents
the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the
greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of
management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource
extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In
comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area
decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in
more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the
stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread
of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area
and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon
habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE
GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:
LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result
that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any
given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity.

Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning
wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend
highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of
outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of
preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF
ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY
WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming.
Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in
correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games,
computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With
a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern.
How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being
utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a
country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons
concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make
cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these
areas beyond another rooftop.

It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect
wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may
consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their
discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would
otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of
preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they
pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As
the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only
increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in
recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for
preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for
it.

S Curtiss

It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a
change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a
negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will
come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser.

Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes
down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem. Curtiss
reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my narrow focus on
trail conflicts between hikers and bikers.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:38:52 -0700, Edward Dolan wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message

snip, too much crap too read


You girls wanna log-off now and get a damn room! And don't forget the
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/images/ency/fullsize/17063.jpg
____
Slack

snip, too much crap too read


Yes, I misspelled to... so sue me.

"Slack" wrote in message
newsp.tciir1o75jd7qu@slacker...
On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 23:38:52 -0700, Edward Dolan wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message

snip, too much crap too read


You girls wanna log-off now and get a damn room!
[...]

Just another idiot mountain biker expressing his frustration at his
inability to read anything longer than one sentence.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05...
It seems the research and the researchers continue to offer further
information showing it is the shrinking of the habitat, not the
recreational use within these areas, that is the root cause of detrimental
effects on wildlife. Human civilization, housing and urban sprawl,
continue to whittle away at natural areas. This not only forces wildlife
onto a smaller footprint of space to feed and live, it decreases the
variety in genetic possibilities for many of the species. In regards to
recreation, it also forces humanity into a "Catch 22" scenario of
protection for the wildlife and access for human recreation in natural
areas for their own health and "peace of mind" benefits. While some
continue to cling to ideas that some forms of recreation are "better" than
others or that some forms of recreation be restricted or banned, it proves
to be counter-productive. These arguments focus on human access into an
ever decreasing footprint which causes friction between "user groups" that
would be better served to maintain a cooperative effort to slow or halt
the sprawl that decreases available space in the first place.

This is only a simple collection of reference from a single source as
shown below. However, it also represents conclusions drawn from outside
sources and discussions as well as a healthy dose of "common sense".

A recent Symposium (Society for Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting,
June 2006) offered many discussions showing that the decreased space, or
systematic carving of available space, is at the root of the issue. The
website (http://www.conbio.org/2006/) posts the abstracts for these
presentations which in no way offer complete figures but do offer enough
information to form a foundation for the conclusions. For instance, "SPACE
UTILIZATION PATTERNS OF BOBCATS (LYNX RUFUS) IN THE SANTA ANA MOUNTAINS IN
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA" focused on an area in Orange County, CA. which was
split by a large highway. One area of 13,000 ha and another area of 3,000
ha was created by this road. The study focused on bobcat movement. The
conclusions indicate it is the proximity to the highway and urban edge,
plus the smaller range size of the 3,000 ha section, that caused a drop in
bobcat activity:

"The two portions of the reserve differed somewhat in habitat composition,
and human recreational use was significantly higher in the smaller section
where camera traps detected 9 humans per 100 trap nights vs. 1 person per
100 trap nights in the larger area. While bobcat home range sizes may
reflect these differences, restricted bobcat ranges in the smaller portion
may simply reflect the reduced patch size created by urban edges and the
highway."

Another presentation, "A COMPARATIVE ASSESSMENT OF BIODIVERSITY
CONSERVATION ON FOUR FEDERAL LAND SYSTEMS IN THE UNITED STATES", shows
that "biodiversity conservation" offers a greater result of wildlife
preservation in many ways. First, it is the primary goal of national
wildlife refuges so the larger focus of effort is on biodiversity and
preservation. This is important to realize as these areas have a large
area footprint but are still finite in their borders. In regards to
recreational use, this is also a concern as other areas continue to be
threatened by human growth which in turn squeezes available space outside
of these refuges. The refuges then become even more a concern as the
habitat "buffers" around them are decreased. This study recognizes four
segments of the government land system. These are the National Wildlife
Refuge System, the National Forest System, the National Park System, and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. Each have specific goals,
guidelines and budgets. However, it is the "Refuge System that represents
the broadest range of ecosystems in the United States and protects the
greatest number of threatened and endangered species." The other areas of
management allow for any number of activities from recreation to resource
extraction but all do have a charter of biodiversity to an extent. In
comparison, the spread of civilization into any habitat or natural area
decreases the available space for wildlife which in turn must result in
more pressure laid upon the National Wildlife Refuge system. While not the
stated purpose of this study, it gives further indication that the spread
of human construction is the central component of decreased natural area
and increased friction between wildlife and human presence. A study upon
habitat fragmentation and the effects of it, "MULTI-TAXA ASSESSMENT OF THE
GENETIC IMPACTS OF FRAGMENTATION AND URBANIZATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA:
LIZARDS (SCELOPORUS OCCIDENTALIS, UTA STANSBURIANA)", gave clear result
that the splintering of habitat, not the recreation allowed within any
given area, was the culprit of a decrease in genetic diversity.

Beyond any of the results or conclusions referenced above concerning
wildlife, available area and recreation within those areas, another trend
highlights a specific need for more people involved in a wide variety of
outdoor activities to be even more concerned with cooperative efforts of
preservation. In the paper, "IS LOVE OF NATURE IN THE US BECOMING LOVE OF
ELECTRONIC MEDIA? 16-YEAR DOWNTREND IN NATIONAL PARK VISITS EXPLAINED BY
WATCHING MOVIES, PLAYING VIDEO GAMES", the conclusions are alarming.
Visits to National Parks show a decline for the first time in decades in
correlation with the rise in popularity of electronic media. Video games,
computers, home entertainment, etc. Fuel prices were also indicated. With
a decreased visitation also follows a decrease in awareness and concern.
How valuable is "green space" to the economic machine if it is not being
utilized for recreation or set aside by an agency as "protected"? In a
country that values "property", it is even more essential that all persons
concerned with natural areas be aware of the threats of sprawl and make
cooperative efforts with any person or group that sees a benefit of these
areas beyond another rooftop.

It is only an opinion, but I believe a valid one. The efforts to protect
wildlife, habitat and human recreation are woven together. While some may
consider wildlife and habitat to be a concern paramount in their
discussion, these persons often alienate a large voice that would
otherwise be in league with their efforts. Some of these discussions of
preservation often discard recreation as non-essential to the goals they
pursue. This continues to prove to be myopic and counter-productive. As
the footprint of habitat is decreased, the stress on wildlife is only
increased. That is a "given". However, the allowance of diversity in
recreation in many of these areas creates an economic foundation for
preservation as well as an interested and diverse human voice to speak for
it.

BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.

S Curtiss
===
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.)

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande

"Mike Vandeman" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Jul 2006 01:38:52 -0500, "Edward Dolan"
wrote:


BS. Curtiss is just using this research as an excuse to continue
abusive forms of recreation, such as mountain biking and ATVs. IF
recreation is important to econiomics and conservation, then,
OBVIOUSLY, recreation should be restricted to the least harmful
activity: hiking. There has never been a good reason given for why
bikes and other vehicles should be allowed off-road.

Can't you READ? Over the years the benefits of off-road cycling have been
shown and accepted as valid by those who plan and regulate access
nationwide. The benefits to preservation alone by the increase in numbers of
varied interest groups apparently flies right over your closed mind. The
decrease in visitation accounted for by increased interest in various
electronic media should be an indicator of the danger involved with
decreased interest. Less people to speak for preservation only increases the
danger of development. You want to restrict activities (off-road cycling,
for example) that adds to these numbers of interest...!? But you are
obviously unconcerned about the "big picture" as long as it includes a few
bicycles. This only continues to prove that it is not wildlife or habitat
you are concerned with but merely use as a scapegoat in attempting to
validate your opinion.
Beyond the added voice for preservation, the economic benefits to many areas
that recreation brings to their communities, the health benefits to the
participants, the added emphasis on cycling as an alternative form of
transportation (cycling in general gets a boost from off-road interest) and
the cross-over interest in the outdoors off the bike all come into play.
The FACT that you use your OPINIONS as a filter to judge the validity of
off-road cycling conitinues to add nails to the coffin of your credibility.

Beyond any of that, I only looked through this site (Society for
Conservation Biology, 20th Annual Meeting, June 2006)
(http://www.conbio.org/2006/) because you listed it on your site as having
presented your anti-cycling propoganda. Are you lying? I looked over the
list of abstracts submitted and guess what...? YOU weren't listed! I can't
find your name ANYWHERE on the site. Did you just add this thinking nobody
would follow up? Now, I know you've attended it before... But now you list
this one but are not shown as submitted...
It is also obvious, even if it was a clerical error and you did present,
that you are out of touch with much of what was actually presented. What I
read through certainly seems to support a more inclusive effort of
cooperation and positive conclusions.

You can use your OPINION to filter this flow of information all you wish.
However, you are being left behind by an ever increasing voice in research
and results and any credibility you ever had is being even further eroded.

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a
change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a
negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will
come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser.

Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes
down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem.
Curtiss reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my
narrow focus on trail conflicts between hikers and bikers.

Please. Don't help. Unlike MV, I do not need the comments of anyone who
advances rape, bigotry and self-proclaimed idiocy posted in association with
anything I may write. I have no use for the mindset that produces the
comments you have made elsewhere in this forum.

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:c7xsg.6898$nK.5086@dukeread05...
It seems


Uh, thats as far as I read.
Slack I think has the right idea for both of you, nice quiet evening in the
ghetto, and don't forget the female condom!! ( maybe steve and mike can get
matching tattoo's, like this...

http://www.stickergiant.com/page/sg/PROD/bz/y8081

Enjoy!!

D Drew

"S Curtiss" wrote in message
news:BXRsg.7409$nK.1164@dukeread05...

"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
...

It is a pleasure to read Curtiss posting some original material for a
change. I hope he will continue to do more of the same and not just be a
negative echo to Mr. Vandeman. We can all use both their inputs and will
come away from it more knowledgeable and wiser.

Curtiss is certainly not wrong in anything he says above. It really comes
down to how narrowly or broadly do we want to focus on the problem.
Curtiss reminds us that the broad focus is far more critical than my
narrow focus on trail conflicts between hikers and bikers.

Please. Don't help. Unlike MV, I do not need the comments of anyone who
advances rape, bigotry and self-proclaimed idiocy posted in association
with anything I may write. I have no use for the mindset that produces the
comments you have made elsewhere in this forum.

Mike Vandeman is quite right to treat Steve Curtiss like the **** head and
scum bag that he is. Curtiss posts nothing but boiler plate even in his own
original post, but I thought to encourage him to do that rather than just be
a freaking negative echo to Vandeman.

Steve Curtiss is nothing but a piece of human **** and that is how is how I
shall treat him from now on. All mountain bikers are nothing but **** heads.
Steve Curtiss is the prime exhibit. Even when he posts his own material, it
is nothing but boiler plate. He is incapable of ever saying anything
original like Vandeman does all the time.

Steve Curtiss will now learn what an evil son of a bitch Ed Dolan can be. I
will go for the jugular each and every time with him. He is nothing but a
g.d. mountain biker who would destroy what it took God and nature millions
of years to create. **** him and all his ilk! It will be my pleasure to tear
him apart from this point forward.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota