Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! (new section added)
Question:
> . And then not even the ones with > .greatest impact. Why not target our efforts where a redution in use by > .those groups would yeild the most? > Bikers have the greatest impact, partly because they travel the > farthest. They are also the fastest-growing group.
MTB sales have been declining for at least two years now, as have race entries. It would seem Michael J. Vandeman is once again lying about the growth of the sport of off-road bicycling. Dave Blake
Response:
> . > . Where can I find of list of species that went extict last > .month? > Try the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and > Natural Resources). But many will not even have been named. That is > how little we know about them.
If we haven’t named them and we know so little about them, how do we know that humans were responsible for their extinction. Millions of mutations are created and destroyed every day. Who’s to say that we are responsible? Who’s to say that these species even exist? – Dan
Response:
It is often said how terrible it will be if the Siberian Tiger or the African Lion or such species becomes extinct. But habitat off-limits to humans can’t help many of these species. Just do the numbers. Start with a reasonable working genetic population, which I believe is widely considered to be 1000 animals. Consider the dietary requirements of a large predator such as a lion, say, 50 head of antelope a year per lion. Figure the size of the herd required to provide 50,000 head for predator consumption per year, at some 500,000 animals, perhaps more. Finally, consider the permanent grazing requirements for 500,000 antelope in acres. To preserve a single large predator species requires a huge habitat. Now consider this requirement multiple times, for the African Lion, the Siberian Tiger, the various other tigers, pumas, jaguars, leopards, mountain lions, etcetcetc. When one says wildlife needs habitat off-limits to humans, that’s a great sentiment, but unworkable for large predator species. The acreage required simply isn’t available and won’t be given up. Greens are very good at making the case that it takes much less acreage to feed a vegetarian human than an omnivorous one. The same arguments work just as well when comparing the habitat requirements of purely herbivorous species to purely carnivorous ones. I would expect that habitat destruction would take its worst toll first on large carnivores, who no longer have the large habitats required to sustain viable populations. Is it the case that most endangered species are carnivorous? Comm Consultants | ooo ooo ~ ooo ooo ~ oOOOO- OOOO=o |Model RR Electronics
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > .Mike, > . > .Bill is not the ignorant one. You are! The spotted owl is a prime > .example. When the trees were cut down, they didn’t die or go extinct, > .they flew to another tree. This is FACT! And if YOU took the time to > .follow through on such issues, YOU would understand how nature takes care > .of itself. Hundreds of species go extinct each month. It is the law of > .nature. Yeah, there are times in which humans don’t help, but for the > .majority of species, they would have gone extinct without our help. > Not according to most biologists, who say that the human-caused > extinction rate is 100s to 1000s of times the previous rate. > .So before you go rattle off your Phd, check out the facts. Check out the > .University of Oregon’s file on the "Spotted Owl" and see what a bunch of > .bullshit people like you spread. All it did was put alot of Humans out of > .work. > There are no guarantees in life, even in business! They chose a > dead-end profession, and got exactly what was inevitable and > PREDICTABLE. > It’s people like you who make this earth a worse place to live. So > .get off the planet and do us all a favor. Geez, people like you make me > .sick! > Glad to see that the level of knowledge & intelligence in the MTB > groups hasn’t changed. 
> .Steve > — > 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
I personally enjoy seeing all these postings on this newsgroup.I have stood idle reading for a while now.You seem to think all MTBers are nihilistic without regard to anyone or anything else.I’m not backing this up with proof,this is just my opinion because this is still a free world.I can probably just about say anything to make me look better,but it won’t matter to you until all MTBers are wiped off the earth.But,you know someone else will come up with a new sport to exploit the enviroment when MTBers(not saying they will)are gone!Look,I’m not saying this is an endless battle….it’s good that you believe so strongly in what you do.That’s what gets things accomplished,but to say that MTBers are the only ones that react so violently to you postings is wrong.I looked at other newsgroups you acknowledge,and they all seem very hostile too.Be it hikers,enviromentalists,or just outdoor enthusiasts…they all seem a little annoyed. See Ya! Rich
Response:
>There are no guarantees in life, even in business! They chose a >dead-end profession, and got exactly what was inevitable and >PREDICTABLE. > It’s people like you who make this earth a worse place to live. So >.get off the planet and do us all a favor. Geez, people like you make me >.sick! >Glad to see that the level of knowledge & intelligence in the MTB >groups hasn’t changed.
Please stop posting to MTB groups then, since you seem to think you are so much holier. If you continue to post and attempt to insult us (us, that have real jobs doing productive things), I will be forced to take further actions — I’m tired of childness infiltrating *every* newsgroup out there. >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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
No, I’d rather do something productive.
Response:
Funny thing is, this poor fool (who *claims* to have a ph d) is basically preaching to the choir. The groups he posts to are the most likely to agree, yet he ignores the groups that could actually use such dribble. Guess he can’t get published in any real magazine, so he has to litter the Web with his foolish ideas (such as calling farms a destruction of habitat, when farms usually make land *more* hospitable). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Only the strong survive Mikey. That is the law of nature. >What’s your Ph d in? My guess is you also belong to Green Freaks.
Response:
. .> The RATE of current extinctions is what is not normal. .> More comparable .> to a meteor strike. . . Where can I find of list of species that went extict last .month? Try the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources). But many will not even have been named. That is how little we know about them. — 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Response:
>.Mike, >. >.Bill is not the ignorant one. You are! The spotted owl is a prime >.example. When the trees were cut down, they didn’t die or go extinct, >.they flew to another tree. This is FACT! And if YOU took the time to >.follow through on such issues, YOU would understand how nature takes care >.of itself. Hundreds of species go extinct each month. It is the law of >.nature. Yeah, there are times in which humans don’t help, but for the >.majority of species, they would have gone extinct without our help.
When the nesting area is near a clear-cut what is the success of that nest???
Response:
.Solution = buy some land and post no tresspassing signs. Not enough, since many species require land that is already in private hands. It is NOT exempt from the ESA, either! — 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Response:
.> .> .> >> Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning .> >> it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not .> >> the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as .> .> >into national parks or other similar reserves. That means that most of .> >the important conservation work must occur on other lands, including .> >production forests, agricultural lands and in cities. Essential as it is .> >for conservationists to work to protect natural landscapes, we should .> .> Indeed. But I believe an important point to Mike’s argument is that we’ve got to .> begin treating all of the land differently. He is not advocating turning cities .> back to forests, but in lessening our impacts on the fragile remainders of those .> forests within and near our population centers, at the very least. .> .> It requires us to acknowledge that we impact these areas in negative ways. Mike .> is asking (in his way) that we stay away from some of these areas completely, .> and lessen our impact on others in any way that we can. .> .> Personally, I find it an admirable. .> .> J .> — .> Bongo Boy is the guy your parents warned you about! [www.bongoboy.com] .If indeed the idea is to reduce the TOTAL impact then why target only .one or two groups that may use an area? Nobody is targeting any group. It is the BIKES that are being banned, as you well know. Why do you insist on perpetuating that lie????? You only make yourselves look dishonest. Well,…. And then not even the ones with .greatest impact. Why not target our efforts where a redution in use by .those groups would yeild the most? Bikers have the greatest impact, partly because they travel the farthest. They are also the fastest-growing group. — 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Response:
.Mike, . .Bill is not the ignorant one. You are! The spotted owl is a prime .example. When the trees were cut down, they didn’t die or go extinct, .they flew to another tree. This is FACT! And if YOU took the time to .follow through on such issues, YOU would understand how nature takes care .of itself. Hundreds of species go extinct each month. It is the law of .nature. Yeah, there are times in which humans don’t help, but for the .majority of species, they would have gone extinct without our help. Not according to most biologists, who say that the human-caused extinction rate is 100s to 1000s of times the previous rate. .So before you go rattle off your Phd, check out the facts. Check out the .University of Oregon’s file on the "Spotted Owl" and see what a bunch of .bullshit people like you spread. All it did was put alot of Humans out of .work. There are no guarantees in life, even in business! They chose a dead-end profession, and got exactly what was inevitable and PREDICTABLE. It’s people like you who make this earth a worse place to live. So .get off the planet and do us all a favor. Geez, people like you make me .sick! Glad to see that the level of knowledge & intelligence in the MTB groups hasn’t changed. .Steve — 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Response:
> The RATE of current extinctions is what is not normal. > More comparable > to a meteor strike.
Where can I find of list of species that went extict last month? George
Response:
At last this thread contains a logical and coherent argument. How long before Mike’s rantings detract from the more serious issues? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > If indeed the idea is to reduce the TOTAL impact then why target only > one or two groups that may use an area? And then not even the ones with > greatest impact. Why not target our efforts where a redution in use by > those groups would yeild the most?
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->> Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning >> it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not >> the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as >into national parks or other similar reserves. That means that most of >the important conservation work must occur on other lands, including >production forests, agricultural lands and in cities. Essential as it is >for conservationists to work to protect natural landscapes, we should > Indeed. But I believe an important point to Mike’s argument is that we’ve got to > begin treating all of the land differently. He is not advocating turning cities > back to forests, but in lessening our impacts on the fragile remainders of those > forests within and near our population centers, at the very least. > It requires us to acknowledge that we impact these areas in negative ways. Mike > is asking (in his way) that we stay away from some of these areas completely, > and lessen our impact on others in any way that we can. > Personally, I find it an admirable. > J > — > Bongo Boy is the guy your parents warned you about! [www.bongoboy.com]
If indeed the idea is to reduce the TOTAL impact then why target only one or two groups that may use an area? And then not even the ones with greatest impact. Why not target our efforts where a redution in use by those groups would yeild the most?
Response:
Take your shit and get off this site your damned Eco Freak! You’re probably to ignorant to know what that is.
Response:
>Bill is not the ignorant one. You are! The spotted owl is a prime >example. When the trees were cut down, they didn’t die or go extinct, >they flew to another tree. This is FACT! And if YOU took the time to
….because there were other trees to fly to. If you would take a moment to broaden your mind a bit you’ll see that the spotted owl argument was about preserving habitat so that when a tree was cut down the owls still had a place to go. >follow through on such issues, YOU would understand how nature takes care >of itself. Hundreds of species go extinct each month. It is the law of
That is probably not true. But since hyperbole seems to be the method of fact here… >majority of species, they would have gone extinct without our help.
The whales, Bald Eagles, Falcons? All those (and more!) have come pretty close to extinction in MY lifetime alone thanks to human actions. Then again, it was when we noticed, when we stopped thinking only about ourselves, that we were able to bring those animals back from edge of extinction. >bullshit people like you spread. All it did was put alot of Humans out of >work. It’s people like you who make this earth a worse place to live. So >get off the planet and do us all a favor. Geez, people like you make me >sick!
A little angry there, Steve? J — Bongo Boy is the guy your parents warned you about! [www.bongoboy.com]
Response:
Mike, Bill is not the ignorant one. You are! The spotted owl is a prime example. When the trees were cut down, they didn’t die or go extinct, they flew to another tree. This is FACT! And if YOU took the time to follow through on such issues, YOU would understand how nature takes care of itself. Hundreds of species go extinct each month. It is the law of nature. Yeah, there are times in which humans don’t help, but for the majority of species, they would have gone extinct without our help. So before you go rattle off your Phd, check out the facts. Check out the University of Oregon’s file on the "Spotted Owl" and see what a bunch of bullshit people like you spread. All it did was put alot of Humans out of work. It’s people like you who make this earth a worse place to live. So get off the planet and do us all a favor. Geez, people like you make me sick! Steve
Response:
>> Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning > it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not > the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as >into national parks or other similar reserves. That means that most of >the important conservation work must occur on other lands, including >production forests, agricultural lands and in cities. Essential as it is >for conservationists to work to protect natural landscapes, we should
Indeed. But I believe an important point to Mike’s argument is that we’ve got to begin treating all of the land differently. He is not advocating turning cities back to forests, but in lessening our impacts on the fragile remainders of those forests within and near our population centers, at the very least. It requires us to acknowledge that we impact these areas in negative ways. Mike is asking (in his way) that we stay away from some of these areas completely, and lessen our impact on others in any way that we can. Personally, I find it an admirable. J — Bongo Boy is the guy your parents warned you about! [www.bongoboy.com]
Response:
Solution = buy some land and post no tresspassing signs. Oh, but you are used to dipping into everyone else’s money for your agenda. : I supose that it’s okay to put spikes in trees to save them from the evil lumber jack also. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > (New section "Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?" was > added.) > Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. > October 12, 1997 > The Problem > Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate, > every square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea, > is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species > per day. Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the primary > reasons why species have become extinct or are in danger of > becoming extinct. > Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning > it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not > the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as > habitat. Anything that makes it unattractive or unavailable to a > given species causes habitat loss. Have you ever wondered why most > animals run away when we come near? It certainly isn’t because they > love having us around! Many animals simply will not tolerate the > presence of humans. The grizzly bear and mountain lion are just two > examples. The grizzly needs a huge territory, can smell and hear a > human being from a great distance, and will avoid going near a > road. > Humans are the ants at every other species’ picnic. One of the > first things that children learn about wild animals is that most of > them run (fly, swim, slither, hop) away whenever we get close to > them. (A few, such as mosquitoes, like having us around.) Some are > more tolerant of us than others, but in any given area, there are > at least some that don’t like having us around. > Let’s take as a premise that we do not want to cause any > extinctions. I think that most people agree with that. But what > follows, is that we have to set aside adequate habitat for all > existing species, and that much of it must be human-free. That is > not understood by most people, even most biologists. We claim to > ___ > believe in the Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans. > It has been said that "The measure of a culture is how well it > treats its least powerful members". By this, our own measure, human > society is a failure in its relations with the rest of creation. > In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area > off limits to humans — an area which we deliberately choose not to > enter so that the species that live there can flourish unmolested > by humans. There are places called "wildlife sanctuaries", where > ______ > human recreation, hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining > are usually allowed. There are a few places where only biologists > and land managers are allowed (e.g. California’s condor sanctuary). > There have been places called "sacred", where only priests could go > (in other words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But > to my knowledge, there has never been any place, however small, > from which the human community has voluntarily excluded itself. > There has been a lot of talk in recent years about looking for life > on other planets. For its sake, I hope we never find it! Why, after > ___ > the inconsiderate way we have treated wildlife on this planet, > ____ > should we be allowed to invade the even more fragile habitats that > may be found in other places? While the thought of finding such > life is intriguing, I haven’t heard anyone suggest that we consider > its feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it would want to > ___ > be left alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!). How are > we going to communicate with intelligent life on other planets, > when we can’t even communicate with the intelligent life on this > ____ > planet? Besides, since the laws of physics and chemistry are > universal, it is unlikely that any such organisms would be > dramatically different from those on Earth. > What scientific evidence do we have that wildlife need to be free > of human intrusion? Not much, probably because scientists are > people, and like the rest of us are instinctively curious about > every thing and every place, and don’t care to be excluded from > anywhere. For most of us, travel is just entertainment, but > scientists probably see their livelihood and success as depending > on being able to travel to any part of the globe and "collect" > (i.e., kill) any organism they find there. I doubt that there are > many scientific studies of the environmental harm done by the > pursuit of science. > (As recently as 1979 (Wilkins and Peterson, p. 178), we find > statements like "Populations of wild animals can have the annual > surplus cropped without harm". Insect field guides, e.g. Powell and > Hogue (1979), also recommend collecting insects as "an exciting and > satisfying hobby for anyone" (p. 359). Does that mean that > collecting grizzlies or tigers is also an acceptable "hobby"?) > However, there is recent research (e.g. Knight and Gutzwiller, > __ > 1995) showing that recreation, even activity traditionally thought > of as harmless to wildlife, can be harmful, or even deadly: > "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were > considered to be ‘nonconsumptive’ activities because removal of > animals from their natural habitats did not occur…. > nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign > in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a > growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can have > serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p. 257). "Activities > [involving] nonmotorized travel … [have] caused the creation of > more … trails in wildlands…. These activities are extensive in > nature and have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways, > particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p. 56). > "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been viewed as most > detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it > has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal’s > breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p. 73). "People > have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no > matter what the activity" (p. 157). "Perhaps the major way that > people have influenced wildlife populations is through encroachment > into wildlife areas" (p. 160). "Recreationists are, ironically, > destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion > of nature…. The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the > same page with interests that are cutting the last of the old- > growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring > billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340). > (Note: wildlife have a hard time distinguishing between biologists > and recreationists!) > In other words, if we are to preserve the other species with which > we share the Earth, we need to set aside large, interconnected > areas of habitat that are entirely off limits to humans ("pure > habitat"). Our idea of what constitutes viable habitat is not > ___ > important; what matters is how the wildlife who live there think. > When a road is built through a habitat area, many species will not > cross it, even though they are physically capable of doing so. For > example, a bird that prefers dense forest may be afraid to cross > such an open area where they may be vulnerable to attack by their > predators. The result is a loss of habitat: a portion of their > preferred mates, foods, and other resources have become effectively > unavailable. This can reduce population sizes, cause inbreeding, > impoverish their gene pool, and impair their ability to adapt to > changing circumstances (such as global warming). It can lead to > local (and eventually, final) extinction. Small, isolated > populations can easily be wiped out by a fire or other disaster. > Other species are not as flexible as we are. We can survive > practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places as well! > What Wildlife Need > Wildlife are not that different from us. Chimpanzees, for example, > are genetically 98% identical with us. Therefore, we should expect > that they need just what we need: a place to live that contains all > necessary resources (food, water, shelter, potential mates, etc.). > It is not too hard to tell when animals are dissatisfied — they > vote with their feet; they die, or leave. The key is to look at > things from the wildlife’s point of view. As simple and obvious as > it sounds, it is rarely done. For example, how often do road > builders consider how wildlife will get across the road? My cat > communicates clearly what he wants: when he wants to go out, he > whines and then goes to the door and stares at the doorknob; when > he is hungry, he leads me to the refrigerator or his dish. We are > proud of our power of empathy, but rarely apply it to wildlife. We > don’t want to be bothered by wildlife in our homes; wildlife > apparently feel the same. > "Pure Habitat" > Go to any library, and try to find a book on human-free habitat. > Apparently, there aren’t any! There isn’t even a subject heading > ______ > for it in the Library of Congress subject index. I spent two days > in the University of California’s Biology Library (in Berkeley), a > very prestigious collection, without success. The closest subject > is probably
… read more »
Response:
.Only the strong survive Mikey. That is the law of nature. That shows your ignorance of biology. No one has espoused that theory for a long time. "Accident" also plays a big part. The fact that one species survives doesn’t prove that it is "strong"! .What’s your Ph d in? Psychology (specialty Psychometrics). .My guess is you also belong to Green Freaks. What’s that? — 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Response:
. . .> (New section "Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?" was .> added.) .> .> Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! .> .> Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. .> .> October 12, 1997 .> .> The Problem .> .> Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate, .> every square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea, .> is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species .> per day. . .This is not an absurd idea but fact. What gives us that right??? I doubt that too many thinking people would agree with you. Humans are at the top of the food .chain and as a result are dominant. .And for God’s sake why shouldn’t we dominate the earth? It’s amazing that anyone in 1997 has to ask that. And what does God have to do with that, or anything??? .>Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the primary .> reasons why species have become extinct or are in danger of .> becoming extinct. . .During the 4 billion year life of this planet many millions of species have .evolved and many millions more have become extinct. The RATE of current extinctions is what is not normal. More comparable to a meteor strike. This isn’t something .new and not even necessarily threatening to human survival. It is ALREADY affecting our survival! Where have you been? This is part .of the earth’s evolution. I’m sick and tired of all the tree huggers .trying to save every owl, mouse and mealy worm on earth without concrete .evidence of any benefit to the human race but lot’s of evidence of harm to .the human race. I don’t think you should display your ignorance so proudly. .This post is rich in imagination, mythology and sophistry but totally .lacking in critical evidence to support the recommendations. Where is the .evidence? Where are the facts? I am not going to post them for you. Read my references. Or is that too much to ask? .If you want to make a contribution to reducing environmental degradation .work on means to reduce population growth I have a vasectomy and no kids; do you? - not shrinking the available .space and resources for a growing population. Shrinking the space and .resource availability for a growing population is a sure formula for .creating more human misery. You don’t seem to understand the degree to which humans depend on other species. I can’t teach you that. You have to do your own homework. — 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://www.imaja.com/change/environment/mvarticles
Response:
Only the strong survive Mikey. That is the law of nature. What’s your Ph d in? My guess is you also belong to Green Freaks.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> (New section "Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?" was > added.) > Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! > Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. > October 12, 1997 > The Problem > Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate, > every square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea, > is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species > per day.
This is not an absurd idea but fact. Humans are at the top of the food chain and as a result are dominant. And for God’s sake why shouldn’t we dominate the earth? >Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the primary > reasons why species have become extinct or are in danger of > becoming extinct.
During the 4 billion year life of this planet many millions of species have evolved and many millions more have become extinct. This isn’t something new and not even necessarily threatening to human survival. This is part of the earth’s evolution. I’m sick and tired of all the tree huggers trying to save every owl, mouse and mealy worm on earth without concrete evidence of any benefit to the human race but lot’s of evidence of harm to the human race. This post is rich in imagination, mythology and sophistry but totally lacking in critical evidence to support the recommendations. Where is the evidence? Where are the facts? If you want to make a contribution to reducing environmental degradation work on means to reduce population growth – not shrinking the available space and resources for a growing population. Shrinking the space and resource availability for a growing population is a sure formula for creating more human misery. Bill Mechlenburg – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning > it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not > the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as > habitat. Anything that makes it unattractive or unavailable to a > given species causes habitat loss. Have you ever wondered why most > animals run away when we come near? It certainly isn’t because they > love having us around! Many animals simply will not tolerate the > presence of humans. The grizzly bear and mountain lion are just two > examples. The grizzly needs a huge territory, can smell and hear a > human being from a great distance, and will avoid going near a > road. > Humans are the ants at every other species’ picnic. One of the > first things that children learn about wild animals is that most of > them run (fly, swim, slither, hop) away whenever we get close to > them. (A few, such as mosquitoes, like having us around.) Some are > more tolerant of us than others, but in any given area, there are > at least some that don’t like having us around. > Let’s take as a premise that we do not want to cause any > extinctions. I think that most people agree with that. But what > follows, is that we have to set aside adequate habitat for all > existing species, and that much of it must be human-free. That is > not understood by most people, even most biologists. We claim to > ___ > believe in the Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans. > It has been said that "The measure of a culture is how well it > treats its least powerful members". By this, our own measure, human > society is a failure in its relations with the rest of creation. > In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area > off limits to humans — an area which we deliberately choose not to > enter so that the species that live there can flourish unmolested > by humans. There are places called "wildlife sanctuaries", where > ______ > human recreation, hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining > are usually allowed. There are a few places where only biologists > and land managers are allowed (e.g. California’s condor sanctuary). > There have been places called "sacred", where only priests could go > (in other words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But > to my knowledge, there has never been any place, however small, > from which the human community has voluntarily excluded itself. > There has been a lot of talk in recent years about looking for life > on other planets. For its sake, I hope we never find it! Why, after > ___ > the inconsiderate way we have treated wildlife on this planet, > ____ > should we be allowed to invade the even more fragile habitats that > may be found in other places? While the thought of finding such > life is intriguing, I haven’t heard anyone suggest that we consider > its feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it would want to > ___ > be left alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!). How are > we going to communicate with intelligent life on other planets, > when we can’t even communicate with the intelligent life on this > ____ > planet? Besides, since the laws of physics and chemistry are > universal, it is unlikely that any such organisms would be > dramatically different from those on Earth. > What scientific evidence do we have that wildlife need to be free > of human intrusion? Not much, probably because scientists are > people, and like the rest of us are instinctively curious about > every thing and every place, and don’t care to be excluded from > anywhere. For most of us, travel is just entertainment, but > scientists probably see their livelihood and success as depending > on being able to travel to any part of the globe and "collect" > (i.e., kill) any organism they find there. I doubt that there are > many scientific studies of the environmental harm done by the > pursuit of science. > (As recently as 1979 (Wilkins and Peterson, p. 178), we find > statements like "Populations of wild animals can have the annual > surplus cropped without harm". Insect field guides, e.g. Powell and > Hogue (1979), also recommend collecting insects as "an exciting and > satisfying hobby for anyone" (p. 359). Does that mean that > collecting grizzlies or tigers is also an acceptable "hobby"?) > However, there is recent research (e.g. Knight and Gutzwiller, > __ > 1995) showing that recreation, even activity traditionally thought > of as harmless to wildlife, can be harmful, or even deadly: > "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were > considered to be ‘nonconsumptive’ activities because removal of > animals from their natural habitats did not occur…. > nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign > in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a > growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can have > serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p. 257). "Activities > [involving] nonmotorized travel … [have] caused the creation of > more … trails in wildlands…. These activities are extensive in > nature and have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways, > particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p. 56). > "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been viewed as most > detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it > has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal’s > breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p. 73). "People > have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no > matter what the activity" (p. 157). "Perhaps the major way that > people have influenced wildlife populations is through encroachment > into wildlife areas" (p. 160). "Recreationists are, ironically, > destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion > of nature…. The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the > same page with interests that are cutting the last of the old- > growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring > billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340). > (Note: wildlife have a hard time distinguishing between biologists > and recreationists!) > In other words, if we are to preserve the other species with which > we share the Earth, we need to set aside large, interconnected > areas of habitat that are entirely off limits to humans ("pure > habitat"). Our idea of what constitutes viable habitat is not > ___ > important; what matters is how the wildlife who live there think. > When a road is built through a habitat area, many species will not > cross it, even though they are physically capable of doing so. For > example, a bird that prefers dense forest may be afraid to cross > such an open area where they may be vulnerable to attack by their > predators. The result is a loss of habitat: a portion of their > preferred mates, foods, and other resources have become effectively > unavailable. This can reduce population sizes, cause inbreeding, > impoverish their gene pool, and impair their ability to adapt to > changing circumstances (such as global warming). It can lead to > local (and eventually, final) extinction. Small, isolated > populations can easily be wiped out by a fire or other disaster. > Other species are not as flexible as we are. We can survive > practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places as well! > What Wildlife Need > Wildlife are not that different from us. Chimpanzees, for example, > are genetically 98% identical with us. Therefore, we should expect > that they need just what we need: a place to live that contains all > necessary resources (food, water, shelter, potential mates, etc.). > It is not too hard to tell when animals are dissatisfied — they > vote with their feet; they die, or leave. The key is
… read more »
Response:
(New section "Where Should Wildlife Sanctuaries Be Located?" was added.) Wildlife Need Habitat Off-Limits to Humans! Michael J. Vandeman, Ph.D. October 12, 1997 The Problem Human beings think that we own, and have the right to dominate, every square inch of the Earth. That, besides being an absurd idea, is the basic reason why we are losing, worldwide, about 100 species per day. Habitat loss is at the top of every list of the primary reasons why species have become extinct or are in danger of becoming extinct. Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as habitat. Anything that makes it unattractive or unavailable to a given species causes habitat loss. Have you ever wondered why most animals run away when we come near? It certainly isn’t because they love having us around! Many animals simply will not tolerate the presence of humans. The grizzly bear and mountain lion are just two examples. The grizzly needs a huge territory, can smell and hear a human being from a great distance, and will avoid going near a road. Humans are the ants at every other species’ picnic. One of the first things that children learn about wild animals is that most of them run (fly, swim, slither, hop) away whenever we get close to them. (A few, such as mosquitoes, like having us around.) Some are more tolerant of us than others, but in any given area, there are at least some that don’t like having us around. Let’s take as a premise that we do not want to cause any extinctions. I think that most people agree with that. But what follows, is that we have to set aside adequate habitat for all existing species, and that much of it must be human-free. That is not understood by most people, even most biologists. We claim to ___ believe in the Golden Rule, but we apply it only to fellow humans. It has been said that "The measure of a culture is how well it treats its least powerful members". By this, our own measure, human society is a failure in its relations with the rest of creation. In 4 million years of human evolution, there has never been an area off limits to humans — an area which we deliberately choose not to enter so that the species that live there can flourish unmolested by humans. There are places called "wildlife sanctuaries", where ______ human recreation, hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining are usually allowed. There are a few places where only biologists and land managers are allowed (e.g. California’s condor sanctuary). There have been places called "sacred", where only priests could go (in other words, they were "sacred" only to ordinary people). But to my knowledge, there has never been any place, however small, from which the human community has voluntarily excluded itself. There has been a lot of talk in recent years about looking for life on other planets. For its sake, I hope we never find it! Why, after ___ the inconsiderate way we have treated wildlife on this planet, ____ should we be allowed to invade the even more fragile habitats that may be found in other places? While the thought of finding such life is intriguing, I haven’t heard anyone suggest that we consider its feelings and wishes, e.g. the likelihood that it would want to ___ be left alone (quite reasonable, considering our history!). How are we going to communicate with intelligent life on other planets, when we can’t even communicate with the intelligent life on this ____ planet? Besides, since the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is unlikely that any such organisms would be dramatically different from those on Earth. What scientific evidence do we have that wildlife need to be free of human intrusion? Not much, probably because scientists are people, and like the rest of us are instinctively curious about every thing and every place, and don’t care to be excluded from anywhere. For most of us, travel is just entertainment, but scientists probably see their livelihood and success as depending on being able to travel to any part of the globe and "collect" (i.e., kill) any organism they find there. I doubt that there are many scientific studies of the environmental harm done by the pursuit of science. (As recently as 1979 (Wilkins and Peterson, p. 178), we find statements like "Populations of wild animals can have the annual surplus cropped without harm". Insect field guides, e.g. Powell and Hogue (1979), also recommend collecting insects as "an exciting and satisfying hobby for anyone" (p. 359). Does that mean that collecting grizzlies or tigers is also an acceptable "hobby"?) However, there is recent research (e.g. Knight and Gutzwiller, __ 1995) showing that recreation, even activity traditionally thought of as harmless to wildlife, can be harmful, or even deadly: "Traditionally, observing, feeding, and photographing wildlife were considered to be ‘nonconsumptive’ activities because removal of animals from their natural habitats did not occur…. nonconsumptive wildlife recreation was considered relatively benign in terms of its effects on wildlife; today, however, there is a growing recognition that wildlife-viewing recreation can have serious negative impacts on wildlife" (p. 257). "Activities [involving] nonmotorized travel … [have] caused the creation of more … trails in wildlands…. These activities are extensive in nature and have the ability to disrupt wildlife in many ways, particularly by displacing animals from an area" (p. 56). "Recreational disturbance has traditionally been viewed as most detrimental to wildlife during the breeding season. Recently, it has become apparent that disturbance outside of the animal’s breeding season may have equally severe effects" (p. 73). "People have an impact on wildlife habitat and all that depends on it, no matter what the activity" (p. 157). "Perhaps the major way that people have influenced wildlife populations is through encroachment into wildlife areas" (p. 160). "Recreationists are, ironically, destroying the very thing they love: the blooming buzzing confusion of nature…. The recreation industry deserves to be listed on the same page with interests that are cutting the last of the old- growth forests, washing fertile topsoils into the sea, and pouring billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere" (p.340). (Note: wildlife have a hard time distinguishing between biologists and recreationists!) In other words, if we are to preserve the other species with which we share the Earth, we need to set aside large, interconnected areas of habitat that are entirely off limits to humans ("pure habitat"). Our idea of what constitutes viable habitat is not ___ important; what matters is how the wildlife who live there think. When a road is built through a habitat area, many species will not cross it, even though they are physically capable of doing so. For example, a bird that prefers dense forest may be afraid to cross such an open area where they may be vulnerable to attack by their predators. The result is a loss of habitat: a portion of their preferred mates, foods, and other resources have become effectively unavailable. This can reduce population sizes, cause inbreeding, impoverish their gene pool, and impair their ability to adapt to changing circumstances (such as global warming). It can lead to local (and eventually, final) extinction. Small, isolated populations can easily be wiped out by a fire or other disaster. Other species are not as flexible as we are. We can survive practically anywhere on Earth, and perhaps other places as well! What Wildlife Need Wildlife are not that different from us. Chimpanzees, for example, are genetically 98% identical with us. Therefore, we should expect that they need just what we need: a place to live that contains all necessary resources (food, water, shelter, potential mates, etc.). It is not too hard to tell when animals are dissatisfied — they vote with their feet; they die, or leave. The key is to look at things from the wildlife’s point of view. As simple and obvious as it sounds, it is rarely done. For example, how often do road builders consider how wildlife will get across the road? My cat communicates clearly what he wants: when he wants to go out, he whines and then goes to the door and stares at the doorknob; when he is hungry, he leads me to the refrigerator or his dish. We are proud of our power of empathy, but rarely apply it to wildlife. We don’t want to be bothered by wildlife in our homes; wildlife apparently feel the same. "Pure Habitat" Go to any library, and try to find a book on human-free habitat. Apparently, there aren’t any! There isn’t even a subject heading ______ for it in the Library of Congress subject index. I spent two days in the University of California’s Biology Library (in Berkeley), a very prestigious collection, without success. The closest subject is probably "wilderness", but wilderness is always considered a place for human recreation. So-called "wildlife sanctuaries" encourage recreation, and often allow hunting, logging, oil drilling, or even mining. The category "animal-human relationships" should contain such a book, but doesn’t. The idea is conceivable, because I just did it, but apparently no one has even considered it important enough to write about, since we "own the entire Earth". I once read Dolores LaChapelle’s Sacred Land Sacred Sex (1988), hoping to learn what sacred land is. I … read more »
Response:
> Outright destruction of habitat (for example, paving it or turning > it into farms, golf courses, housing developments, or parks) is not > the only way that an area can become untenable (useless) as > habitat.
At the risk of buying into a thread which could swallow me, may I comment on an issue that concerns me as an ecologist? There is a great danger in promoting the idea of "wilderness" in the manner above. I certainly do not dispute the need for tracts of undisturbed habitat. Lots of them, and as large as possible. However, it is incorrect and quite irresponsible to claim that wilderness alone has any habitat value. It is incorrect because ANY landscape contains some wildlife. Further, many altered landscapes are extremely important habitat for a wide variety of organisms. To claim they are useless allows the arguement that "since they are already altered and therefore of no use, it doesn’t matter what we do with them." The hedgerows in Europe, or the Canadian prairies are not natural phenomena. Neither the agricultural landscapes of which they are part. However, drain the artificial water impoundments and take away the hedgerows, and see what sort of devastating effect this has on wildlife. What was present before the agricultural landscape supported a biological abundance. BUT, since "conversion", it does maintain at least some of its ecological function and biodiversity, even if this is less than we might wish for. Its up to us to see that these altered landscapes are also managed correctly to protect what values they still retain. Its also up to us to recognise what these values are, and to point them out. After all, most countries will be struggling to put 10% of their land area into national parks or other similar reserves. That means that most of the important conservation work must occur on other lands, including production forests, agricultural lands and in cities. Essential as it is for conservationists to work to protect natural landscapes, we should not let the idea of wilderness be used to frustrate attempts to achieve more balance and ecological rationality in our other forms of land use. In fact, unless we tackle this issue seriously, not only will our quality of life become progressively more miserable, but any small wilderness areas left will become unsustainable, persisting for a few years as overvisited arboreta and zoos. "All you need in this life are ignorance and confidence, then success is sure"…Mark Twain. M. Scott O’Keeffe Centre for Conservation Biology University of Queensland
