Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles@xxxxxxx
- Date: 29 Nov 2005 03:18:42 -0800
Mike Vandeman wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2005 00:01:01 -0800, pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
> .
> .Mike Vandeman wrote:
> .> On 21 Nov 2005 15:48:56 -0800, pbowles@xxxxxxx wrote:
> .>
> .> .> .> .> .> > On 13 Nov 2005 08:35:13 -0800, "Josh Campbell" <jcampbell.joshua@xxxxxxxxx>
> .> .> .> A hypothesis as well as supporting evidence and arguments.
> .> .> .
> .> .> .Where does this evidence come from if the hypothesis hasn't been
> .> .> .tested?
> .> .>
> .> .> From earlier research. Are you playing dumb?
> .> .
> .> .Let me make this simple for you: Supporting evidence for a hypothesis
> .> .comes from tests of *that hypothesis*.
> .>
> .> Nonsense. Other research often has implications that support a hypothesis (make
> .> it seem more probable).
> .
> .This is true. But again this evidence is drawn on after the hypothesis
> .is formulated - if you draw on the same evidence you use to formulate
> .the hypothesis, you're doing nothing to test the predictive power of
> .that hypothesis.
>
> Who cares? I only care if it's true. I'n not trying to get tenure.
Ifyou care if it's true, surely you have an interest in finding out
whether it's true?
> .In this case the hypothesis
> .> came after the evidence. The evidence (in this case, _Wildlife and
> .> Recreationists_) can still support the hypothesis.
> .
> .Or any number of alternate hypotheses one dreams up to be consistent
> .with them. You really don't seem to grasp what the scientific method
> .entails.
>
> I'm not playing your game. All I care about is what's true. It's up to you to
> disprove it or disbelieve it, if you are so inclined.
I see. Explain to me, if you would, why exactly you've spent (by
accounts on other threads) several years pushing your position on the
internet, writing papers, arguing and the rest? I presume it's in an
effort to persuade people that your position is correct. I also wonder
how well you're succeeding - it seems that some of the people you've
been arguing with are individuals you've been arguing with for years,
and who remain unconvinced? Have you, in fact, won many converts? If
not, have you wondered why that is? I'll give you a clue: it's not
because there's a powerful mountain bike lobby out there indoctrinating
people.
> .Which are the very ones I'm complaining about. Your flames.
>
> "Flame" is subjective. You are just as disparaging as I am, hypocrite.
Okay, use a more objective term. "Ad hominem attack", as in attacks on
the person making an argument in lieu of addressing the argument. Such
as by referring to the other side as "hypocrite" rather than addressing
the point. Nowhere have I made any personal insult or said anything
about you beyond the scope of this discussion; I've criticised your
approach and your apparent grasp of the subject at hand, both in the
context of the discussion. In fact, I've endeavoured to enlighten you
as to the points you seem unclear on. You, on the other hand,
continually attempt to goad me into a flame war - "hypocrite",
"dishonest", "LYING", "you haven't learned to think" etc. etc., often
as your sole response to a point while ignoring the point itself -
which serve no purpose beyond abuse and do nothing to aid your
argument. Straightforward ad hominem attacks. Flames. I am guilty of
neither.
> .> .> I only noticed one comment of yours, in a thread
> .> .> .of 70+ messahes in which you were the major contributor, referring to a
> .> .> .scientific study - and that was one you criticised for concluding that
> .> .> .there was no significant difference between the effects on soil
> .> .> .compaction of hiking and those of mountain biking. That, and your
> .> .> ."paper", which consists largely of unreferenced assertions (including
> .> .> .such key points as "Is mountain biking harmful? Of course it is),
> .> .> .arguments based on flawed logic and a noticeable dearth of scientific
> .> .> .information. What's more, all the scientific references you do cite
> .> .> .conclude that there is no impact
> .> .>
> .> .> Not true. You didn't read the references, I guess.
> .> .
> .> .No, I read your citations - which is enough to justify the statement
> .> ."all the scientific references *you do cite* conclude that there is no
> .> .impact",
> .>
> .> Not true. Since you didn't actually READ any of them, it is outrageous that you
> .> would make any statement about what they concluded!
> .
> .Your own paper outlined, and in some cases cited, the conclusions they
> .reached.
>
> Then how did you miss the conclusions of Wisdom et al, which agreed with me?????
Wisdom et al concluded merely that animals ran away from mountain
bikes. They also hypothesised that this might affect their survival if
it prevented them from building up fat reserves, and stated that this
required further investigation. It's a very twisted interpretation of
that to claim unqualified support for your assertion that mountain
biking harms wildlife.
> .> That is pure speculation. You have absolutely no idea what I know! It is the
> .> height of irresponsibility to make assertions about something you know nothing
> .> about.
> .
> .Based on your contributions to this thread, your biological knowledge,
> .including that of fairly elementary principles, is extremely sketchy.
>
> BS. You have absolutely no idea what I know, and your claim that it is "sketchy"
> is therefore dishonest. If you said it was your OPINION, that might be a true
> statement, but as an assertion of fact, it is a LIE.
You really do struggle with qualifiers, don't you? "Based on your
contributions to this thread..." I know what you've contributed to this
thread.
> .> The problem is
> .> .that your reasoning is (at least purportedly) logical reasoning, not
> .> .scientific reasoning.
> .>
> .> BS. That is pure fantasy. Apparently, you think I am incapable of "scientific"
> .> reasoning, even though I have a Ph.D. Where did you get that idea????
> .
> .Whether or not you're capable of it, you haven't employed it in that
> .paper - and it is from the paper itself that I get that idea.
> .Scientific reasoning is a process of deduction from the results of
> .analyses, not logical formulations of the "If...then..." variety that
> .characterise your arguments. Such as your claim below that "if energy
> .is used to move, then survival must be at stake".
>
> That's true, from simple physics. An animal needs a certain amount of energy to
> survive, and without it, will die.
Physics can reveal that animal uses energy, and that if that energy is
used more rapidly than it can be replenished, the animal will
eventually die when its stores run out. It tells us nothing about
whether a particular expenditure of energy is likely to be critical, or
whether the animal has the ability to replace the energy lost in time
to avoid death. That requires investigation to determine.
> .> .Actually, I was referring to the Lathrop literature review. The Wisdom
> .> .study is ecologically unimportant in itself, since it merely relates to
> .> .the actions of a few individual animals that happen to be close to the
> .> .paths. As the authors themselves point out, further research is needed
> .> .to identity whether this has any relevance to elk survival.
> .>
> .> BS. That is already known: forcing the animals to move reduces their energy
> .> stores, so it is automatically significant to their survival.
> .
> .When was the last time you read the papers you insist others do, or
> .even the parts of your paper referring to them? Wisdom et al: "The
> .energetic costs associated with these treatments deserve further
> .analysis to assess potential effects on elk survival." Hardly the sort
> .of comment they'd make if they'd conducted the study on the presumption
> .that those energetic costs are significant for elk survival, is it?
>
> They are simply trying to assess the EXTENT of harm. That there is harm is
> undeniable.
In fact, they go onto say that if there is found to be a certain
reduction in body fat accumulation, that will be likely to affect elk
survival over the winter. The operative word being "if". Note also that
they describe the need to "assess the *potential* effects on elk
survival". Not to quantify a known effect, but to confirm whether a
suspected effect is, in fact, real.
> .> .And again, no I didn't read it because - and hopefully if I say it
> .> .slowly and loudly you will retain it - I'm. Not. Here. To. Argue.
> .> .About. Mountain. Biking. I appreciate that you seem to find it
> .> .difficult to keep focussed on anything else, but all I'm doing is
> .> .responding to your request to comment scientifically on what you've
> .> .presented. Not to engage in your debate, which I have no reason to care
> .> .about unless you can provide strong scientific grounds for your
> .> .position.
> .>
> .> Which I did, as did Wisdon et al.
> .
> .As I've pointed out repeatedly (and for that matter as Wisdom et al
> .point out about their own study), the evidence you've drawn from your
> .sources doesn't justify your conclusions, and that's the case even if
> .you're right about the flaws in your sources' conclusions.
>
> You are operating from hidden assumptions, which only started to be revealed
> below, e.g. that if there isn't a reduction of population, there isn't any harm.
> That is pure hogwash.
You have yet to explain why this is the case.
> .For example, it is
> .> obvious that getting run over by a car is harmful. We don't need a scientific
> .> study to prove it!!!!!!
> .
> .No one's asking for a study to tell whether running over a beetle or a
> .plant on a bike is harmful to that beetle or plant. Studies are needed
> .to determine whether that in itself has any significance.
>
> BS. That is pure ecology jargon. What does it really mean??????? Obviously, the
> death of an organism IS significant, to that organism as well as others.
Okay, so let's start by defining harm. This will be helpful since you
have yet to do so yourself. Harm, as you've noted, I define as evidence
of population decline or otherwise increased extinction risk, such as
by loss of sufficient habitat to sustain the population at its current
size (which is a slightly delayed form of population decline). The
important element of this conception is extinction risk - a population
or species is harmed if its risk of extinction is increased. It follows
from this that, if a form of disturbance increases the extinction risk,
it harms that population. If it doesn't, it is de facto not
significant.
> .> You make it plain that the purpose
> .> .of your paper is to prove mountain bikers' claims untrue and
> .> .irrelevant. How can you possibly claim not to have a preconceived
> .> .conclusion, indeed an agenda? It's there in your own words.
> .>
> .> Everybody has an agenda. Whether they state it is irrelevant, and doesn't make
> .> their paper any less scientific, except in your mind.
> .
> .What arrant nonsense. I'll grant you that most researchers have an
> .agenda, in the sense that they aim to prove something specific by
> .conducting their studies, but the crucially important thing is that
> .they don't presume that agenda is correct
>
> Oh, yeah? You PRESUME that harm isn't demonstrated till population decline is
> proven. That is pure IDEOLOGY. You are reasoning in circular fashion, because
> you DEFINE harm as "population decline".
How is defining something in any way circular? Yes, I do presume that
harm isn't demonstrated until it has been proven - that is, in fact, a
tautology, and I do tend to assume that tautologies are true rather by
definition.
> .> .and if there are too
> .> .> many of us too close, they LEAVE THE AREA.
> .> .
> .> .They may do, but how many is too many?
> .>
> .> It doesn't matter. It's still a fact.
> .
> .Of course it matters. If you have any objective to minimise disturbance
> .you need to know how much disturbance can be borne and how much is
> .damaging.
>
> Of course it's damaging. If you are in a traffic jam on the way to work, you get
> there late. That's a harm. You certainly can't claim it as a BENEFIT!
I see, you're using the term "harm" for its emotive connotations, not
because it has any relevance to the way the word is conventionally
used. A harm is not simply something that happens that isn't a benefit,
and disturbance isn't necessarily non-beneficial in any case. I'm not
wholly sure where the traffic jam analogy is going; most deer don't
work to tight schedules and don't worry unduly about getting paid a bit
less than normal.
> .> It comes back to the need for
> .> .evidence again - is there any evidence that mountain biking causes
> .> .animal populations to leave a disturbed area?
> .>
> .> Yes, in the papers I referenced. They all moved, except the mule deer.
> .
> .Unless you haven't cited the relevant passages, they all refer to
> .individual animals moving away from the path. I'll ask again,
> .emphasising the important points: is there any evidence that mountain
> .biking causes animal *populations* to leave a disturbed *area*?
>
> Do you mean "permanently"? Because you aren't clear. The papers demonstrate that
> the animals do leave the area, and for even longer than the period of
> disturbance.
I mean, leave the area in the sense of becoming locally extinct, that
they emigrate because the habitat is no longer suitable for their
survival. So, yes, essentially permanently. A group of animals leaving
a foraging site temporarily isn't a population leaving an area - the
population encompasses all the animals in that species throughout that
habitat patch.
> .> and if as you claim your
> .> .references represent the sum total of the research into the topic then
> .> .it must be concluded that that evidence doesn't exist, for given your
> .> .objectives you would surely have highlighted any that did.
> .>
> .> The evidence is there. You are ignoring it, for some reason.
> .
> .It's not in your paper, to be sure. Here's another hint on scientific
> .writing: if you argue for a particular position, it is up to you to
> .present the evidence supporting it in that argument, not to rely on
> .others to look it up.
>
> I'm not trying to prove YOUR hypothesis, only mine.
It's yours you have yet to prove, and that you attempt to reinforce
with appeals to others to read your source material.
> but you've done me a
> .favour by bringing the same thing up in a more recent post:
> .
> ."But what I do think it means is that we should act with restraint --
> .with the manners of a guest! What does this mean in practice? I think
> .it means,
> .first of all, to "listen" to other species, and what they are trying to
> .tell us!
> .For example, what is the first thing that every child learns about
> .wildlife?
> .That they don't want us around: that they run away whenever we try to
> .approach
> .them!"
> .
> .The implication is clear: animals don't like humans
>
> BS. The article is about humans, which is why I talk about humans. You wouldn't
> know an "implication" if it hit you in the face..
Articles about human disturbance refer to specifically human forms of
disturbance - logging, agriculture and so forth, for instance. If you
read a paper on selective logging you don't take it to imply that
logging by beavers has the same effect as logging by humans. Similarly,
when you make the point of raising this issue in a paper about human
disturbance (and, what's more, emphasise it with exclamation marks) you
are suggesting that there is something uniquely human about this
disturbance. This is reinforced by your anthropomorphising wildlife as
an aggregate entity that objects to our being guests in its realm,
clearly implying a difference between their approach to humans and
their approach to other animals. If you were writing a paper on the
Serengeti, would you say that gazelles object to having lions as guests
in their realm and keep away from them for that reason?
> It is, if they deserve that treatment, which these papers all do.
>
> Certainly it might
> .highlight possible weaknesses in approaches taken to date and so
> .suggest future avenues for research, but that isn't what yours does. A
> .scientific literature review of your references would conclude that the
> .research carried out to date suggests mountain biking has little or no
> .greater impact than hikers on wildlife (if you set out to answer this
> .question)
>
> No, it doesn't. That's only what it CLAIMS to show. The claims aren't justified.
It's what a reading of the literature suggests, which is all I
mentioned you should say. And then, reading on, you'll find that I
addressed this point - that you're entitled to point to flaws which
might call into question their results, along the lines of "although at
first glance the data suggest that mountain biking has no greater
effect on soil erosion than hiking, a reanalysis of these results
accounting for differences in the distance travelled by hikers and by
mountain bikers implies that an individual mountain biker is
responsible for greater soil erosion than an individual hiker."
> but that certain issues that might be relevant, such as the
> .length of trail used by different types of land user, were ommitted
> .from consideration and deserve further investigation, and possible
> .weaknesses in the experimental approaches taken suggest a need for more
> .rigorous studies.
>
> That's not what I did.
Exactly the problem.
I accepted their data, and showed that their own data
> prove my hypothesis. That's perfectly valid.
That isn't at all what you showed. You would be justified in pointing
out that, based on the difference in the distance travelled by bikers
and hikers, that the results imply mountain bikers have a greater
effect on soil erosion as individuals than hikers. You would be
justified in pointing out that animals have been shown to run from
wildlife. None of which in itself supports your hypothesis that
wildlife is harmed by mountain biking. The data simply don't address
that question.
> It could also point out that some evidence indicates
> .that wild mammals flee from an oncoming mountain bike, though
> .qualifying this by pointing out that no studies have been carried out
> .to determine whether they react the same way towards hikers.
>
> That wouldn't be true. The studies ALL compared hikere with mountain bikers.
> Hello!!!!!
Oops, you're right, I checked the Wisdom quote again and they did
indeed contrast their results with hikers and horse-riders. So you
wouldn't include that qualifier, and would indeed be justified in
pointing out that animals have been shown to flee more readily from
mountain bikes than hikers. This is still the limit of what you can
extrapolate from the evidence you have.
..
> .
> .What was that you were saying earlier about not needing evidence for
> .the "obvious"? The comment you're replying to here was simply a matter
> .of logic - the fact that there's evidence that human activities harm
> .wildlife is not evidence that X form of disturbance harms wildlife or
> .that it harms it at the population or community level.
>
> Who cares about "the population or community level"??????????????? It's
> irrelevant. If you get killed by a hit-&-run driver, I doubt that your wife
> would say "but there's no harm at the population or community level". Idiot.
Guess what? That beetle that's just been squashed by a mountain bike
doesn't live in a traditional family. It doesn't have relatives or a
spouse that mourn its passing. No one but a human is likely to walk
past it and think "oh, that's sad, a poor dead beetle".
What I think we have here is a case where you haven't thought through
*why* life has any value. Value is something that's apportioned, not
something inherent. Human lives have value because we value them - we
value our own, we value those of people we care about. Animal lives
have value too because we care about them - because there are humans
who do walk past the beetle and think "that's sad, a poor dead beetle",
because we enjoy wildlife as something to view, to photograph, and
habitats as nice scenery. The animals don't think that way. They don't
value their lives or those of other animals. They just exist. Many
appear to have rudimentary forms of consciousness, but none but the
highest of the higher primates exhibit self-consciousness, and that
extremely limited. None have the ability to see something dead and
relate it to something that will happen to them 'personally' in the
future.
> indeed I pointed one out
> .in your last post, when you argued that the fact that people use
> .mountain bike paths necessarily increases disturbance, with the clear
> .implication that the effect on wildlife must be negative.
>
> Yes, when it drives the animals away from their food! That is an obvious harm.
It's only obvious if it's clear they have no other suitable sources of
food, or that they're driven off so persistently that their foraging
success is significantly jeopardised, which hasn't been shown.
> .> .> If you want to make a specific case you
> .> .> .need specific evidence to support it, not "humans have been known to
> .> .> .harm wildlife therefore keeping humans out must be good".
> .> .>
> .> .> I already gave it. You continue to ignore it. And you claimed to want a real
> .> .> debate?
> .> .
> .> .Where did I claim that? All I recall saying on the specific question of
> .> .mountain bikes and disturbance is that I'd be interested in seeing any
> .> .evidence that such an effect exists, particularly at the community
> .> .level. All you've presented so far is, at best, evidence that mountain
> .> .bikes cause soil erosion and that individual animals run away from
> .> .them, neither of which is ecologically relevant in the absence of
> .> .information on the effects of these factors on wildlife populations and
> .> .communities.
> .>
> .> BS. They are obviously harmful, regardless of whether anyone can measure impacts
> .> "on wildlife populations and communities". Do you need a "study" to convince you
> .> that getting run over by a car is harmful?
> .
> .No, but I need a study to convince me it's having an effect on
> .populations of people (or animals) being run over by cars.
>
> Who, other than you, is interested in "populations"? That is not the subject of
> my paper.
In your paper you make no effort to define your concept of "harm" at
all. And if you aren't interested in populations, why bring this to an
ecology group? What sort of scientists did you expect to find here -
astronomers? Geologists? Botanists? Do you even know what ecology is?
> Cane toads
> .get run over by cars all the time here; it's not having any adverse
> .effect on their population that anyone can see.
>
> So what? It's still harmful to them. Or are you arguing that it's beneficial????
Actually I think cane toads are treated very unfairly around here, and
not just by the people who insist on whacking them with golf clubs and
probably would regard it as beneficial. Of course it doesn't do the
toad much good, but you have yet to explain why it's a particular
tragedy for it to happen.
> .> .and don't listen to either evidence
> .> .
> .> .I've looked at all the evidence you laid out in your paper - there were
> .> .no ecological studies, nothing at all on the effects of biking on
> .> .wildlife populations, just a few papers on soil erosion without linking
> .> .that to wildlife impacts, and a fair bit of speculation and suggestions
> .> .for further study which appear not to have been taken up.
> .>
> .> I see You think that a measurable impact on wildlife populations
> .
> .or communities
> .
> . is the ONLY
> .> evidence of harm.
> .
> .Well, at any ecologically significant level, yes.
>
> That's circular reasoning. You have simply redefined "harm". That is not the
> definition that I or 99% of the world uses! You just said that it's not
> significant if it's not significant.
It isn't circular reasoning, it's a definition. I'm not *arguing* that
harm represents an effect on the population, simply stating it as the
definition of harm. The argument is that you have provided no evidence
for any such harm.
> Populations are the
> .things that are prone to going extinct under threat, and whose presence
> .or absence determines whether a species is to be found in one place or
> .another.
>
> So the death of organisms isn't important? What about your own death? Isn't that
> important?
To my circle of friends and family, but not to anyone else, not to the
population and certainly not in any ecological sense. Stop
anthropomorphising animals: very few animals exhibit awareness of death
among members of their species (chimpanzees, hippos, whales and
elephants - none commonly found in North American deserts) and none
exhibit the self-awareness necessary to be aware of themselves as
finite beings that will one day die, or fear that death. As a
psychologist I'm sure you're aware that full self-awareness doesn't
develop in humans until perhaps as late as the age of 4, certainly not
before the age of 2. Animals have no concept of their own death, no
fear of it, no aspirations they aim to achieve before it occurs or
regrets for being unable to do so. They have no friends or family who
will mourn them save in the very few instances I mentioned, and in
those rarely for long. Animals live on a day-to-day basis - on one of
those days they happen to die for one reason or another. Life goes on.
I would suspect that you behave differently, and try to preserve
> yourself.
Plenty of animals aim to preserve themselves; most, in fact. It's a
hard-wired response, sometimes simply in response to movement. Humans
flee instinctively, not out of an imminent fear of death, but simply
out of fear - even of things as innocuous as mice in some cases, which
can't possibly harm them. The fear of death is something that only
comes with thought and foresight - thinking that you are afraid because
of something you foresee happening in the future to yourself.
> . No wonder you seem so obtuse. That is totally absurd,
> .
> .In what way?
>
> Reread "Alice in Wonderland". It talks about arbitrary definitions of words.
Another nonanswer. What is arbitrary about a definition based on
observation of population trends and the fairly self-evident fact that
if losses are replenished, there is no significant effect on those
populations?
> .> .> .Studying erosion won't tell you more than that there's been a change to
> .> .> .the environment - whether wildlife is affected by that change will
> .> .> .require further study.
> .> .>
> .> .> BS. Erosion involves killing the animals and plants that were there.
> .> .
> .> .Hold on - are you saying that what you're concerned about isn't
> .> .ecological disturbance, but simply whether the odd animal or plant dies
> .> .here and there? That's not my concern and it isn't of ecological
> .> .interest - if you want to make any serious claim for an impact on
> .> .wildlife you need to be able to show an effect at the population level,
> .>
> .> That is PURE BS. So nothing is significant unless it changes a population
> .> level?!!!!!
> .
> .The concern is, ultimately, whether a population is driven to
> .extinction, correct?
>
> NO! That's not the only concern! Genetic diversity, & many other factors can be
> harmed.
Two things. First, why is genetic diversity in a population important?
Because it relates to a species' fitness, its ability to survive and
hence stave off extinction. Bringing us back to the need to study the
population-level effects of disturbance on extinction risk. Second,
what are the "many other factors"? At a guess they'll also boil down to
affecting the chance of extinction if they are genuinely significant.
> That's a population level effect and only occurs
> .following drastic or long-term declines at the population level.
> .
> .What about the loss of genetic diversity WITHIN the population?!!!!!
> .> That's not significant????????
> .
> .See my previous response to this. You're misusing the concept by
> .applying it at inappropriate scales.
>
> Hogwash. Are you saying that loss of diversity can only happen when X
> individuals are killed, but not when Y (< X) are killed? That is ABSURD. It is
> also FALSE.
No. I'm saying it's biologically trivial. Exactly the same loss occurs
when a particular individual is eaten by something, starves, is killed
by a freak weather event or disease, or simply dies without
reproducing. In fact it's a requirement for natural selection to take
place. It's a misuse of the concept of genetic diversity loss to apply
it at this scale.
> .> .not just that an animal might die here and there that may have lived a
> .> .few more days in the absence of bikers. Unless we're talking about
> .> .something very rare in that habitat, specific individuals aren't of any
> .> .ecological importance - they come and go all the time.
> .>
> .> I see. If you don't think life is significant, WHY ARE YOU STUDYING BIOLOGY?????
> .
> .Where did I say anything of the sort?
>
> Search for the word "odd": "whether the odd animal or plant dies here and there?
> That's not my concern and it isn't of ecological interest".
Where is any claim about life's significance here? I made a point about
the *ecological* importance of particular individual organisms, no
comment at all about life per se.
By the way, are you
> British? I haven't seen that expression ("the odd") much.
I hadn't realised it was an uncommon expression. I am British as it
happens; does it matter?
> Species are important. Locally,
> .populations are important. These are entities that persist for
> .centuries, millennia, even millions of years, about which there's a
> .great deal to learn, which may perform significant ecological
> .functions, and which are simply enjoyable to look at and study. But
> .individuals are ephemeral,
>
> And that means "unimportant"?
It means they're not suitable targets for conservation, which is
concerned with ensuring persistance. if you ban bikes from a trail to
save a beetle, and the beetle dies the next day anyway, what precisely
is the accomplishment? Where is the purpose? Why is that particular
beetle valuable anyway? Especially if you devote resources to it, as
you'd have to if you succeeded in achieving a ban which would require
enforcement, it's a highly inefficient use of resources with no obvious
valuable objective.
> .>
> .> But it is more LIKELY that they are in a favorable area, than not. After all,
> .> they aren't stupid.
> .
> .They don't have a map of the area either, and in any case might not be
> .spending all their time foraging - they might be looking for a more
> .suitable spot. They just go to the closest area where they have an
> .expectation of finding food - that reduces the energy involved in
> .travel and the risk of exposure to predators while looking for a new
> .foraging site.
>
> I don't think you have the foggiest idea what they are doing. But when you claim
> that displacing them isn't harmful, you are just LYING.
You have difficulty with subtle distinctions, don't you (and seemingly
also the concept of lying)? What I (echoed by Wisdom et al) said is
that displacing them isn't *necessarily* harmful, that it is an issue
which requires investigation to resolve. Are the animals left
critically short of energy by their flight? Wisdom et al point out that
we don't know. Are they able to recover the energy lost in sufficient
time to avoid incurring costs to their survival? We don't know. If you
go for a run when you don't need to, it isn't normally fatal, and
runners don't endanger their future survival prospects compared with
couch potatoes.
> .> .> If particular
> .> .> .species permanently move elsewhere as a consequence, certainly that's
> .> .> .relevant, but noting whether a deer runs out of the way of something
> .> .> .that might run it over reveals nothing.
> .> .>
> .> .> You are amazingly ignorant, for a so-called "biologist". Running away takes
> .> .> energy.
> .> .
> .> .For an individual animal. So what?
> .>
> .> Groups are made up of individuals. DUH!
> .
> .Yes. And?
>
> So the processes you CLAIM to be operating at a "higher" level are really
> operating at the individual level.
Incorrect. See my comments about emergent properties. Fundamentally,
communities and populations "behave" differently from individuals, and
it is the interactions at these levels that affect the ecosystem. It is
the behaviour of that population or community that is therefore
relevant to ecosystem function, and so long as the behaviour of a
population is not changed by the deaths of individuals, those
individuals are not important to the system.
> .> You said that killing wildlife is "not significant". It would be hard to find a
> .> clearer taking of sides.
> .
> .Killing individual animals and plants is "not ecologically significant"
> .was the phrase I used.
>
> Exactly. That means that whatever humans do, short of wiping out large numbers
> of individuals, is okay.
You really ought to try for greater accuracy in your paraphrases. It
means that human activities that don't result in population declines
can be sustained; they can be borne by the system. This is a simple
observation from ecology. There's no value judgment involved as to
whether or not that makes it "okay". It's really up to the individual
to decide whether they're comfortable with recreational activities or
whatever that might result in them squashing beetles whose squashing
would otherwise be avoidable.
> . This doesn't seem to qualify as taking sides -
>
> Sure it is. Ordinary people (who aren't "ecologists") don't distinguish between
> various types of killing, as you do. From the point of view of an animal killed,
> it doesn't matter at which "level" it was killed; it is just as dead, either
> way.
Huh? An organism can only be killed at one level, the level of the
individual. I've already made the point that it's irrelevant to that
individual whether it was killed by a bike, a hiker or another animal.
> .Philip Bowles
>
> I am still waiting for you to cite the source for your claim that the killing of
> "the odd individual" isn't significant....
There isn't a single source, it's a basic point in ecology and I really
don't have time to give you a crash course. Smply, in ecological
textbooks and discussions there isn't a need to say "this predator
eating that animal is a significant effect", and the study simply gets
down to the business of quantifying deaths - ecology isn't a study of
individual organisms. For a start it's logically consequent from the
points I make above that individuals have no ecological significance,
but to give you some pointers I'll point you to, for instance, what are
known as compartment models. These model populations at different life
stages, and the conclusions reached from the results of these models
include the conclusion that it isn't necessarily critical to a
population if all its adult members die at once so long as there are
sufficient new recruits to ensure persistence.
Perhaps you misunderstood it (I am
> giving it the benefit of the doubt), or maybe the author is just mistaken. I
> cited a couple of such idiots in http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/india3.
You cited a couple of old amateur natural history books and made no
counterpoint to their claims, simply scoffed at them in indignation.
Philip Bowles
.
- References:
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: Mike Vandeman
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: Mike Vandeman
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: Mike Vandeman
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: Mike Vandeman
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: pbowles
- Re: Stop It!!
- From: Mike Vandeman
- Re: Stop It!!
- Prev by Date: Re: Stop It!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Stop It!!
- Next by thread: Re: Stop It!!
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
