Cycling Forums - View Single Post - Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder

11-21-2006, 12:41 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news

qa6m2h8ovpehac1nedlphgmhv5p1h0s90@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>>>>Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife
>>>>for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human
>>>>populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African
>>>>tribes, for instance)
>>>>Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to
>>>>humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give
>>>>little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is
>>>>inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife
>>>>grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no
>>>>danger.
>>>
>>> That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we
>>> aren't harming them.
>>While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most
>>prevalent
>>in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human
>>presence over time is much improved.
>
> That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH!
> Crawl back under your rock.

True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing
direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion and
your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information.
How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about
exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How
about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather
than pulling only the pieces you like?

"You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation,
that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of
habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be
more sensitive to human presence."

When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers, rather
than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have taken a
big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no platform on which
to present your "opinions".

Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global warming
featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan.
Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting changes
of climate.
Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your sig
(I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road
construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.

11-21-2006, 12:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
S Curtiss Guest Posts: n/a	Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder "Mike Vandeman" <mjvande@pacbell.net> wrote in message newsqa6m2h8ovpehac1nedlphgmhv5p1h0s90@4ax.com... > On Sun, 19 Nov 2006 11:01:14 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net> > wrote: > >>>>Despite the human interaction and close proximity of humans and wildlife >>>>for thousands of years leading up to "civilization". Despite the human >>>>populations that still live within wildlife boundaries (many African >>>>tribes, for instance) >>>>Despite the many deer and other wildlife that live in close proximity to >>>>humans in many areas. Canaan Valley, WV., for instance. Deer there give >>>>little concern for human presence. MV maintains that "wildlife" is >>>>inherently afraid of human contact yet ignores the fact that wildlife >>>>grows accustomed to human presence when that presence presents no >>>>danger. >>> >>> That a few species are forced to approach us doesn't prove that we >>> aren't harming them. >>While much research shows human presence may cause avoidance, most >>prevalent >>in the initial contact, other studies show wildlife adaptation to human >>presence over time is much improved. > > That doesn't constitute proof that they haven't been harmed! DUH! > Crawl back under your rock. True to form. You split the context in a meeger attempt at changing direction. You are pathetic in the extreme in your manner of discussion and your lack of honesty in the recognition of real information. How about recognizing the complete context for a change? How about exhibiting some integrity of the title (PhD) you constantly flaunt? How about actually recognizing the complete pool of scientific evidence rather than pulling only the pieces you like? "You also ignore in your judgements against cycling and other recreation, that it is the urban expansion that reduces and fragments these areas of habitat onto an ever decreasing footprint causing surviving wildlife to be more sensitive to human presence." When you acknowledge it is the urban growth that is reducing numbers, rather than the mere presence of a person (bike or no bike), you will have taken a big leap of integrity and honesty. Until then, you have no platform on which to present your "opinions". Even today, the AP issued a story on the loss of species and global warming featuring comments by University of Texas biologist Camille Parmesan. Nothing indicates the existence or use of mountain bikes is exacting changes of climate. Perhaps you should have stayed focused on the old mission stated in your sig (I spent the previous 8 years fighting auto dependence and road construction.) Maybe then you could have saved some lives.