11-22-2006, 08:28 AM
|
#4 (permalink)
|
| Guest | Re: Last Child in the Woods -- Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 15:41:35 -0500, "S Curtiss" <stevecurtiss@cox.net>
wrote:
>
>"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.
>
>
Yawn.
===
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
|
|
|  |