OT: Lion/Hiker near miss - Page 5 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

02-01-2007, 03:59 AM

Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]:

> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 22:40:20 -0500, "S Curtiss" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. ..
>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:47:33 -0500, "S Curtiss"
>>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] m...
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:40:08 -0500, "S Curtiss"
>>>>> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker.
>>>>>>>>Anecdotal. Where is your documented 3rd party evidence showing
>>>>>>>>these numbers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's obvious.
>>>>No - It isn't OBVIOUS unless that is all you want to see.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A hiker can and
>>>>>>>>> will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most
>>>>>>>>> likely will never even know it was there, and will certainly
>>>>>>>>> crush it.
>>>>>>>>Your lack of experience about the riding habits and attentions
>>>>>>>>of cyclists
>>>>>>>>is evident in your statement of OPINION.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But it's TRUE.
>>>>>>No.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have seen the dead snakes that prove it.
>>>>
>>>>Where is the PROOF? Where are the photos? Where are the witnesses
>>>>that saw the cyclist hit a LIVE snake? Where is the documentation
>>>>showing the only possible cause was a cyclist?
>>>>WHERE IS IT?
>>>
>>> Obviously, you don't really care.
>>I don't care because I won't give you a pass on unsubstantiated
>>statements...? I don't care because I insist on proof of your
>>charges...? I don't really care about your lies.
>
> "Lies"? You haven't found even ONE yet! (Hint: there aren't any. I
> don't need to lie, since the truth is on my side.)
>
> .. I'll give you that. And I and others
>>make sure everyone is well aware of your lies. By doing so, we allow a
>>greater cooperation between all groups without bickering over the
>>misinformation you present. That greater cooperation allows for better
>>discussions on preservasion which you obviously don't care about.
>>>
>>>>> It is your OPINION that off-road cyclists can not ride AND see
>>>>> their
>>>>>>surroundings and obstacles (IE: wildlife on trail)
>>>>>>You attempt to use your limited experience of off-road cycling as
>>>>>>a factor
>>>>>>in determining how everyone else must perceive it.
>>>>>>That is evident as your OPINION is constantly used in place of
>>>>>>FACT.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>There are examples in zoological museums.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed"
>>>>>>>>or "crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents
>>>>>>>>showing they were
>>>>>>>>definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye
>>>>>>>>witness accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can tell by the width of the wound: identical to the width
>>>>>>> of a mountain bike tire, which doesn't match any shoe.
>>>>>>Really...? The existence of what you say is a mountain bike tire
>>>>>>mark proves
>>>>>>they were killed by mountain bikers....?
>>>>>>You do not even entertain the POSSIBILITY they were dead before
>>>>>>the marks
>>>>>>were made...
>>>>>
>>>>> Not likely. I have NEVER seen a dead snake there, until one was
>>>>> killed by a mountain biker.
>>>>Did YOU SEE the cyclist hit it? Who else was present? Do you have
>>>>corroboration? Do you have PROOF it was not already dead from some
>>>>other cause? Where is the PROOF the only possible cause was a
>>>>cyclist?
>>>
>>> The biologist who examined it agrees that it was killed by a
>>> mountain biker. There is no other possible answer.
>>Names...? Association... ? Documentation...? Background...?
>>Without it, it is still you simply saying "because I say so" which is
>>hardly acceptable.
>>While you are at it, show the conclusive process that allows this
>>"biologist" to say it was "killed" by a cyclist and not already dead
>>when a cyclist may have encountered it.
>
> If yiu were HONEST, which you aren't, you would find your OWN snake or
> other animal killed by a mountain biker. They must be pretty common.
>
>>>>This is, as it has always been, an example you CLAIM proves off-road
>>>>cyclist
>>>>behavior but you have no REAL EVIDENCE. Your word means NOTHING.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
>>>>>>What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed"
>>>>>>or "crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents
>>>>>>showing they were
>>>>>>definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye
>>>>>>witness accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
>>>>STILL NO ANSWER TO DIRECT QUESTIONS ON POINT AND PROOF.
>>>>And that speaks VOLUMES on your credibility as a LIAR.
>>STILL NO ANSWER on a direct point YOU MADE. YOU stated "There are
>>examples in zoological museums". So, go ahead, which examples...?
>>Which museums...? If there are examples, then it should be easy for
>>you to supply the names.
>
> If you were smart (or cared), you would already know that information.\

I find mikeys little responses so amusing. He can't even support his own
arguments. Quite pathetic actually

> ===
> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-01-2007, 11:11 AM

Ale Brewer wrote:

> I find mikeys little responses so amusing. He can't even support his
> own arguments. Quite pathetic actually

Almost as pathetic as re-posting 7 KB's worth of Vandedrivel {tm} just to
add your too little sense.

HTH.

BS (really)

02-01-2007, 11:16 AM

Ale Brewer wrote:

> I find mikeys little responses so amusing. He can't even support his
> own arguments. Quite pathetic actually

Almost as pathetic as re-posting 7 KB's worth of Vandedrivel {tm} just to
add your too little sense.

HTH.

BS (really)

02-01-2007, 11:22 AM

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Ale Brewer wrote:
>
>> I find mikeys little responses so amusing. He can't even support his
>> own arguments. Quite pathetic actually
>
> Almost as pathetic as re-posting 7 KB's worth of Vandedrivel {tm} just to
> add your too little sense.
>
> HTH.
>
> BS (really)
>
>
Or double posting even!

02-01-2007, 02:48 PM

"wizardB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:ZZrwh.847267$R63.445391@pd7urf1no...
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Ale Brewer wrote:
>>
>>> I find mikeys little responses so amusing. He can't even support his
>>> own arguments. Quite pathetic actually
>>
>> Almost as pathetic as re-posting 7 KB's worth of Vandedrivel {tm} just to
>> add your too little sense.
>>
>> HTH.
>>
>> BS (really)
> Or double posting even!

That's more stupid than pathetic -- I should know! (Ol' Ale Brew snuck
himself into the "Reply Group" option, so my munged addy caused my server to
belch. Twice.)

Bill "hope that wasn't too techy" S.

02-03-2007, 03:29 PM

--
No Signature. Read on.
"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. ..
>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>MattB wrote:
>>>>> cc wrote:
>>>>>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wow. Scary!
>>>>>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
>>>>>>> north
>>>>>>> of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
>>>>>>> shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
>>>>>>> attack
>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>>>>>>> either animal mauled the man"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
>>>>>> obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
>>>>>> Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
>>>>>> which a park should represent . . . sheesh.
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
>>>>> getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
>>>>> the
>>>>> first ones they could get.
>>>>> I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
>>>>> pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
>>>>> doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
>>>>> my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
>>>>> chain was designed to work.
>>>>
>>>>Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
>>>>residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
>>>>destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
>>>>more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
>>>>behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
>>>>animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
>>>>eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
>>>>should do?
>>>>
>>>>cc
>>>
>>> No. Close the park permanently to humans.
>>> ===
>>> 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!
>>>
>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>
>
> Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
> will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
> will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
> are examples in zoological museums.
> ===
> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Can you please give me an address where I may view the specimens you claim
are in zoological museums. I do not believe you have the credentials to
make such claims.

Have the specimens been peer reviewed, and judged by scientific method to
have been "ran over" as you americans say.

TJ

02-04-2007, 07:06 PM

On 31 Jan 2007 00:18:51 -0800, "Beej" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Jan 30, 9:50 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> If yiu were HONEST, which you aren't, you would find your OWN snake or
>> other animal killed by a mountain biker. They must be pretty common.
>
>Common? What percentage of my rides do you reckon I kill snakes on,
>Mike?

More than 0.

>-Beej
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-04-2007, 07:33 PM

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:29:31 -0700, "TJ" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. net!newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!newscon 04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!newshub.sdsu.edu!b order1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!loc al01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.bresnan.com!news.b resnan.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:28:29 -0600
>From: "TJ" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>Newsgroups: alt.mountain-bike,rec.bicycles.soc,rec.backcountry,ca.environme nt,sci.environment
>References: <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> <45ba2910$0$10558$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> <epdae1$6cj$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> <epdlth$gjh$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> <7h2vh.192$Xf4.33@trndny09> <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>Subject: Re: So you admit HIKERS kill the wildlife!!!!
>Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:29:31 -0700
>X-Priority: 3
>X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
>X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
>X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
>Message-ID: <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]>
>Lines: 103
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 72.174.3.57
>X-Trace: sv3-TXBtsSzv5nf39HyQbkoZDwJbmdvZhxWfS3PD+WH5U113dYQjRC 8Yw1zCiCmb9zQhJYz2JQxHWbBylY/!k6Mj9KQhyFwU7Q/JQ+s/hkn5qJtuHRFDJ4oxJG/NVMDPE6vo2vef12iETAeEea9uHwYSccTFNZdL!aA1hS9dfTA==
>X-Complaints-To: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>X-DMCA-Complaints-To: [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
>Xref: prodigy.net alt.mountain-bike:518090 rec.bicycles.soc:173114 rec.backcountry:455582 ca.environment:54235 sci.environment:601974
>
>
>
>--
>No Signature. Read on.
>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].. .
>> On Sun, 28 Jan 2007 14:18:43 GMT, "JP" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ...
>>>> On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 11:49:55 -0800, cc <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>MattB wrote:
>>>>>> cc wrote:
>>>>>>> GeeDubb wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "MattB" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wow. Scary!
>>>>>>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Glad he got away alive.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Matt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "After the attack, game wardens closed the park about 320 miles
>>>>>>>> north
>>>>>>>> of San Francisco and released hounds to track the lion. They later
>>>>>>>> shot and killed a pair of lions found near the trail where the
>>>>>>>> attack
>>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The carcasses were flown to a state forensics lab to determine if
>>>>>>>> either animal mauled the man"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is absolutely ridiculous. They should be prosecuted. It's
>>>>>>> obviously revenge, given the odds of actually finding the same lion.
>>>>>>> Last time I checked, mountain lions were predators in "nature". . .
>>>>>>> which a park should represent . . . sheesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maybe. I'd think with dogs tracking them there is more likelihood of
>>>>>> getting the right one(s) would at least be better than just shooting
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> first ones they could get.
>>>>>> I also see your point about nature, but like it or not humans have
>>>>>> pretty much removed themselves from the food chain. I see flaws with
>>>>>> doing this in terms of how things "should" play out, but if it was me,
>>>>>> my friends or my family involved, I'm less concerned with how the food
>>>>>> chain was designed to work.
>>>>>
>>>>>Even in the case where we are encroaching on their habitat with our
>>>>>residences, it is debatable whether we should engage in the "search and
>>>>>destroy" method of elimination of "rogue" wild animals. It is a much
>>>>>more compelling case, however, than doing the same thing to animals that
>>>>>behave as animals when we are supposedly visiting their habitat. The
>>>>>animal kingdom is dangerous. Kill or be killed. The only way to
>>>>>eliminate that danger is to eliminate the animals. Is that what we
>>>>>should do?
>>>>>
>>>>>cc
>>>>
>>>> No. Close the park permanently to humans.
>>>> ===
>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>>>
>>
>> Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
>> will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
>> will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
>> are examples in zoological museums.
>> ===
>> 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!
>>
>> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
>
>Can you please give me an address where I may view the specimens you claim
>are in zoological museums. I do not believe you have the credentials to
>make such claims.

You don't need "credentials" to see the obvious. The tags on the
snakes say "killed by a mountain biker". DUH!

>Have the specimens been peer reviewed, and judged by scientific method to
>have been "ran over" as you americans say.

Yes.
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-05-2007, 04:25 PM

"Mike Vandeman" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]...
> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 17:29:31 -0700, "TJ" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Of course. Just A LOT LESS than any mountain biker. A hiker can and
>>> will step over an animal on the trail. A mountain biker most likely
>>> will never even know it was there, and will certainly crush it. There
>>> are examples in zoological museums.
>>> ===
>>Can you please give me an address where I may view the specimens you claim
>>are in zoological museums. I do not believe you have the credentials to
>>make such claims.
>
> You don't need "credentials" to see the obvious. The tags on the
> snakes say "killed by a mountain biker". DUH!
>
>>Have the specimens been peer reviewed, and judged by scientific method to
>>have been "ran over" as you americans say.
>
> Yes.
Who did the review or examination? Where? When? Where are the actual
documents on results?
Are you going to answer his DIRECT question? He asked you for a physical
ADDRESS to view these alleged specimens.

As have I:
**********
"Thats a laugh! You say they exist therefore it is on you to provide the
PROOF. Your statement "They must be pretty common" is an assumption based on
your OPINION. I've been riding for years and haven't come across an animal
that shows signs it was killed by a cyclist. It is rare to find a dead
animal along the trail killed by any means. You can either provide the
scientific and conclusive evidence from this biologist (a name, and facility
association as well) or you are claiming something you can not prove.
"Because you say so" is not evidence. If you were HONEST, you would have NO
DIFFICULTY providing this proof.
>
>>>>This is, as it has always been, an example you CLAIM proves off-road
>>>>cyclist
>>>>behavior but you have no REAL EVIDENCE. Your word means NOTHING.
>>>>>
>>>>>>Beyond that you are AGAIN avoiding the DIRECT questions:
>>>>>>What examples? Which museums? Which ones are labeled "destroyed" or
>>>>>>"crushed" by "mountain bikers"? Which ones have documents showing they
>>>>>>were
>>>>>>definately killed by mountain bikers? Which ones document eye witness
>>>>>>accounts of the death by "mountain bikers"?
>>>>STILL NO ANSWER TO DIRECT QUESTIONS ON POINT AND PROOF.
>>>>And that speaks VOLUMES on your credibility as a LIAR.
>>STILL NO ANSWER on a direct point YOU MADE. YOU stated "There are examples
>>in zoological museums". So, go ahead, which examples...? Which
>>museums...? If there are examples, then it should be easy for you to
>>supply the names.
>
> If you were smart (or cared), you would already know that information.

Sorry - my "Kreskin Skills" are limited when it comes to devining
information from morons. YOU say it is there. If you honestly thought your
statements were true, you would gladly offer real information to support
them instead of trying to sidetrack and misdirect inquiries.So.... Either
provide proof of your statements or, by not doing so, provide the proof you
are lying
That should be easy to grasp by someone with a PhD... Even if it is on fast
food preperation. "
***********************
So which is it? Definate proof with names, addresses, specimen names and
location / case / reference / number. Something TANGIBLE that can be
verified.
This should be EASY if it is actual.

Either provide real and verifiable evidence to support your statements
concerning these "animals" or, by not doing so, acknowledge you are a liar.

> ===
> 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!
>
> [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

02-05-2007, 04:37 PM

On 4 Feb 2007 21:00:36 -0800, "Beej" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>On Feb 4, 8:33 pm, Mike Vandeman <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> You don't need "credentials" to see the obvious. The tags on the
>> snakes say "killed by a mountain biker". DUH!
>
>Like that means anything. I put those tags on every dead snake I
>find.

They were put there by the biologist. DUH!

>-Beej
===
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!

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]