snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
dying,"

now I'm just getting hungry

snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
dying,"

now I'm just getting hungry

I don't know about where you guys are, but here in PA we have FAAAAAR too many
deer. There are many more than 100 years ago. There are several thousand
"interactions" between deer and vehicles each year. We also have an over
abundance of geese fouling (ha!) up fields, yards golf courses, etc. Don't know
about elk, but fish seem abundant hereabouts as do trees.

Dave Hall
a proud member of PETA (yeah, that one, not the one that thinks animals should
have more rights than people)

In article , mel
wrote:

snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
dying,"

now I'm just getting hungry

See http://balderstone.ca/Godscreatures1.jpg

;-)

djb

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent to
compensate for this." - CW

David Hall wrote:
snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
dying,"

now I'm just getting hungry


I don't know about where you guys are, but here in PA we have FAAAAAR too many
deer. There are many more than 100 years ago. There are several thousand
"interactions" between deer and vehicles each year. We also have an over
abundance of geese fouling (ha!) up fields, yards golf courses, etc. Don't know
about elk, but fish seem abundant hereabouts as do trees.

Dave Hall
a proud member of PETA (yeah, that one, not the one that thinks animals should
have more rights than people)

Umm... did you note the sarcasm? Keep the ducks, I take a
nice T-Bone of bovine or second choice of grain fed elk.

mel wrote:

no offense taken and I appreciate the correction. Like I said earlier...
I sell lumber for a living ...not teach botany.

I never cared about any of that stuff until I got into gardening. I quickly
learned that a "geranium" isn't a "geranium." Especially when you're
talking to people from different parts of the country/world. So I started
to acquaint myself with the botanical names for everything.

It's not so useful in wood, and I haven't bothered to learn more than a few
of the most obvious ones. You could probably sit there and reel off half a
dozen varieties of red oak or whatever, and I wouldn't have a clue. But
I'll always remember King Phillip cut off Father Gregory's scrotum. That
teacher was a trip!

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Dave Balderstone wrote:

See http://balderstone.ca/Godscreatures1.jpg



--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

In article , Silvan
wrote:

Dave Balderstone wrote:

See http://balderstone.ca/Godscreatures1.jpg




The fun thing is that biillboard's in Greenville South Carolina, and
not Saskatoon Saskatchewan.

:-D

djb (in Saskatoon Saskatchewan)

--
"Modern technology has enabled us to communicate and organize with speed and
efficiency never before possible. People have gotten less competent to
compensate for this." - CW

mel wrote:
sighhhh.... the tip of each limb grows in a spiral pattern as length
is
added to the limb.

Ok, that makes sense. It's not clear why that makes the wood
less stable so long as the grain runs vertically up and down the
trunk instead of spirally around like curly maple. In fact, I
hadn't known that about yellow pine.

Folklore abounds in the woods, just like anywhere else so it
wasn't clear if you knew what you were writing about (which
clearly you did) or had an _interesting_ notion about how trees
grow.

--

F

Dave Hall responds:

snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
dying,"

now I'm just getting hungry

I don't know about where you guys are, but here in PA we have FAAAAAR too
many
deer. There are many more than 100 years ago. There are several thousand
"interactions" between deer and vehicles each year. We also have an over
abundance of geese fouling (ha!) up fields, yards golf courses, etc. Don't
know
about elk, but fish seem abundant hereabouts as do trees.

And Canada geese. One local town--Saltville, I want to say--tried to enact an
ordnance allowing consecutive Saturday shotgun hunting of the damned things,
but the animal lovers won again. They are lovely birds, but when you get
mulstiple thousands flocking to one small town to feed and nest, it does get
messy.

Deer are a problem throughout the parts of Virginia that don't border on
Bull**** City (DC, for those not in the know). That's most of the parts. I
don't know what the figures are, but I do know I'd get at least 10,000 more
miles per set of tires if we had the same number now as we had 30 years.

I recall years ago having to come to a stop for a flock of wild turkeys: my
mother, a native Virginian, was with me, and told me that they'd been almost
extinct within the state when she left home for nursing school in '28. But in
'88, the flocks on back roads were large enough to stop traffic--not that there
was, or is, much to stop.


Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some
kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri, November 2,
2000

In article , David
Hall wrote:

a proud member of PETA

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Gerry

Charlie Self wrote:

Dave Hall responds:

snipped from George's post-"We all know that we are in a
mess with fewer trees, the fish, ducks, elk, deer, etc. are
dying,"

now I'm just getting hungry

I don't know about where you guys are, but here in PA we have FAAAAAR too
many
deer. There are many more than 100 years ago. There are several thousand
"interactions" between deer and vehicles each year. We also have an over
abundance of geese fouling (ha!) up fields, yards golf courses, etc. Don't
know
about elk, but fish seem abundant hereabouts as do trees.

And Canada geese. One local town--Saltville, I want to say--tried to enact
an ordnance allowing consecutive Saturday shotgun hunting of the damned
things, but the animal lovers won again. They are lovely birds, but when
you get mulstiple thousands flocking to one small town to feed and nest,
it does get messy.

Don't know what the current situation is but back 20 years or so when I was
taking some classes at UCONN, there was a pretty little pond on the campus
that had a resident flock of geese. The vicinity looked like the dog
population of midtown Manhattan had been using it for a dog-walk, and the
geese were known to chase students. The consensus was that there should be
one big goose dinner for the student body, but the animal-rights twits and
the Bambi Appreciation Society and the rest of the Politically Active
Banana-Brains held rallies and raised consciousness and great clouds of
Marijuana smoke every time it was proposed so nothing ever got done. I
hope sanity won, but suspect that either (a) the geese are still there, or
(b) they were captured and transported at great expense to some other
locale, probably a reservoir, from which they no doubt promptly flew back.

Deer are a problem throughout the parts of Virginia that don't border on
Bull**** City (DC, for those not in the know). That's most of the parts. I
don't know what the figures are, but I do know I'd get at least 10,000
more miles per set of tires if we had the same number now as we had 30
years.

I recall years ago having to come to a stop for a flock of wild turkeys:
my mother, a native Virginian, was with me, and told me that they'd been
almost extinct within the state when she left home for nursing school in
'28. But in '88, the flocks on back roads were large enough to stop
traffic--not that there was, or is, much to stop.


Charlie Self
"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's
some kind of federal program." George W. Bush, St. Charles, Missouri,
November 2, 2000

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:25:28 -0500, "G.E.R.R.Y."
wrote:


Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

That is how I think of it. Meat is a good thing.

Barbequed meat is even better. :-)

Charlie Self wrote:

Deer are a problem throughout the parts of Virginia that don't border on
Bull**** City (DC, for those not in the know). That's most of the parts. I
don't know what the figures are, but I do know I'd get at least 10,000
more miles per set of tires if we had the same number now as we had 30
years.

You can say that again. They're scary critters. I must see an average of
five dead ones on every trip. At least. I don't envy the people who hit
them, or the people who have to clean up their bloated carcasses either.

I recall years ago having to come to a stop for a flock of wild turkeys:
my mother, a native Virginian, was with me, and told me that they'd been
almost extinct within the state when she left home for nursing school in
'28. But in '88, the flocks on back roads were large enough to stop
traffic--not that there was, or is, much to stop.

The way I hear it, trees were almost extinct in the state in '28 too. They
seem to have bounced back pretty well also.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Dave Balderstone wrote:

The fun thing is that biillboard's in Greenville South Carolina, and
not Saskatoon Saskatchewan.

Now that you mention it, I've seen ads for that place. I don't think I have
seen that particular billboard, but I'll watch for it. (I travel through
Greenville regularly.)

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:

In article , David
Hall wrote:

a proud member of PETA

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Damn right it is! Pass the cow.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Silvan wrote:
G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:

In article ,
David
Hall wrote:

a proud member of PETA

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Damn right it is! Pass the cow.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.

As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline.

Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills
during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have
"too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people").
The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road
construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of
deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a
symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by
competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial
humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the
"canary-in-the-mine".

This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op
about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now g.

Dan

wrote in message
oups.com...
As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline.

Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills
during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have
"too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people").
The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road
construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of
deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a
symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by
competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial
humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the
"canary-in-the-mine".

This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op
about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now g.

Dan


You would lose your money.

Bag the environmentalist cant (rant?) and think. Other than ungulates, what
is there that can eat grass for a living? It's the neighborhood that counts.
Where chow is abundant, the population expands to consume it. Same-o
'coons, geese and such. Until they reach the carrying capacity of the
neighborhood, that is. Then they have to move or starve. Same thing for
those predators the folks who preach more "humane" killing of livestock keep
talking about. They'll expand to the chow available, when available, then
move or crash.

To return, somewhat, to woodworking, one way of reducing the deer population
is to allow climax forest to predominate. It's poor deer forage, which is
why it can grow past their predations. Yes, he said "predations," because
to a clump of brome an encounter with a deer can be a deadly experience.
Other ways in current vogue are to allow the population to thin itself by
disease - CWD, brainworm in moose, and so forth. Disease is rarely a
problem in a small population - paths of infection make it difficult to
build an epidemic, especially when the infectious agent which preys (there,
he said it again) on the target causes death of the host before it can find
another victim.

Your canary is singing the wrong song. He should sing a song of plenty, not
of lack.

Oh yes, in spite of overpopulation, we still have only limited doe hunting
here. Kill a buck - reduces the population by one. Kill a doe, usually by
three. We could use some doe liberation.

wrote:
....
I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.
....

Are you willing to pay higher prices for it is the key question...or buy
from US producers who do over cheaper importers who don't? The answer
to those questions has always been "yes" on the tongue, "no" from the
pocketbook...

Most of the animals we kill and eat wouldn't even exist if it weren't for
the industrial feed and slaughter operations.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
wrote:
...
I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.
...

Are you willing to pay higher prices for it is the key question...or buy
from US producers who do over cheaper importers who don't? The answer
to those questions has always been "yes" on the tongue, "no" from the
pocketbook...

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 01:20:58 GMT, "mel"
wrote:

Most of the animals we kill and eat wouldn't even exist if it weren't for
the industrial feed and slaughter operations.

Most of the animals we kill and eat would not exist if it were not for
agricultural practises period!

Humans were a hunter-gatherer society to begin with until agricultural
practises came along.

writes:
Silvan wrote:
G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:

In article ,
David
Hall wrote:

a proud member of PETA

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Damn right it is! Pass the cow.

I eat meat; don't have much of a problem with most hunting; but I do
think we owe the animals we kill and eat more respect and decency than
they get on those industrial feed and slaughter operations.

Can you articulate why you think this way? On what basis have you
come to this conclusion?


As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline.

Ah. 4-legs good, 2-legs bad.

scott

G.E.R.R.Y. wrote:
In article , David
Hall wrote:

a proud member of PETA

Isn't PETA "People Eating Tasty Animals"?

Gerry

Yeah, that's the one I belong to.

Dave Hall

We need open season on eco-kooks!



"George" george@least wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
As to the explosion of deer and geese populations, widely noted across
the U.S., I would put money on it being a result of the loss of other
species less adaptable to human-dominated environments. In other
words, we have more deer/geese because we have fewer of any number of
other critters that used to live in the same locale, eating the same
things, but less able to survive close to people. This does not bode
well for the future--it means the overall livability of our world is in
decline.

Hunting more of these animals is not the answer--in Missouri the kills
during deer season have risen steadily for years, but we still have
"too many" (read this as "too many, too close to too many people").
The answer has more to do with other factors--urban sprawl, road
construction, pressure on habitat of less adaptable species. Think of
deer (geese/squirrel/oppossum/raccoon) "over-population" as a
symptom--in a truely healthy environment they would be kept in check by
competition; in an environment evermore skewed toward urban/industrial
humans (you 'n' me) they are a kind of pre-cancerous growth--the
"canary-in-the-mine".

This probably has something to do with woodworking, and with my op
about yp, but I'm too tired to find it now g.

Dan


You would lose your money.

Bag the environmentalist cant (rant?) and think. Other than ungulates,
what
is there that can eat grass for a living? It's the neighborhood that
counts.
Where chow is abundant, the population expands to consume it. Same-o
'coons, geese and such. Until they reach the carrying capacity of the
neighborhood, that is. Then they have to move or starve. Same thing for
those predators the folks who preach more "humane" killing of livestock
keep
talking about. They'll expand to the chow available, when available, then
move or crash.

To return, somewhat, to woodworking, one way of reducing the deer
population
is to allow climax forest to predominate. It's poor deer forage, which is
why it can grow past their predations. Yes, he said "predations," because
to a clump of brome an encounter with a deer can be a deadly experience.
Other ways in current vogue are to allow the population to thin itself by
disease - CWD, brainworm in moose, and so forth. Disease is rarely a
problem in a small population - paths of infection make it difficult to
build an epidemic, especially when the infectious agent which preys
(there,
he said it again) on the target causes death of the host before it can
find
another victim.

Your canary is singing the wrong song. He should sing a song of plenty,
not
of lack.

Oh yes, in spite of overpopulation, we still have only limited doe hunting
here. Kill a buck - reduces the population by one. Kill a doe, usually
by
three. We could use some doe liberation.

Statements like "the overall livability of our world is in decline" and "our
failure to see the bigger picture" followed by "focusing on just one aspect
of it ... is myopic and stupid" really get under my skin.

It is in itself arrogant, and to use your word.... myopic. The U.S. has 2.3
billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska. The land
area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.
To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103 million
acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20
million acres.Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and urbanization,
only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3
percent of the land area in the U.S.

Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and
subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The total
acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44 million
acres are lots of 10 or more acres.

Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1 percent of
total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant until
you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder corn and
another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are consumed by
livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect more of
the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural residential,
highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and golf
courses combined.

Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This is
the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops --
feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay (61
million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total
crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.

The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than 3
million acres.

Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of the U. S.
excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size of 8.3
states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture and
cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and other
public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million acres are
forested lands that are grazed.

Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands, some
501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed forest
and other special categories).

The USDA report concludes that urbanization and rural residences
(subdivisions) "do not threaten the U.S. cropland base or the level of
agricultural production." This does not mean sprawl doesn't have impacts
where it occurs. But the notion that sprawl is the greatest threat to
biodiversity is absolutely false.

"mel" wrote in message
news

Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops. This
is
the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops --
feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa hay
(61
million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of total
crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.

The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less than
3
million acres.


Which is why my garden is so attractive that I have to have that electrified
fence around it.

Yep, crop and grazing improvements make good deer grub, though, strangely,
they didn't graze the Sudan grass on the north forty much at all.

Mel: I did not say "sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity. . .
.." I did say, relative to the perceived deer population "explosion",
it is indicative of the consequences of human/urban development. No
great leap to conclusions here.

For that matter, to take up your well-enumerated points, our industrial
farming is hardly a boon to biodiversity. Given that so many more
acres of land are devoted to this kind of urbanized development (and
modern industial agriculture is not a "rural" enterprise in anything
other than location) I would say your logic only reinforces my
argument.

In that regard, practices on the mechanized, mega-acre food factories
are more responsible for the "urbanization" of the countryside than is
development sprawl. We just see the effects on the edges of our towns
and cities--i.e. deer as pests. (Urban hunters are only asking to also
regard them as a protein source, thus killing the "proverbial" two
birds.) Either way, we are consuming diversity at an increasing rate
(killing, in the process, the "literal" two birds). I know of no
reason to consider this is a good trend.

Dan

mel wrote:

...

It is in itself arrogant, and to use your word.... myopic. The U.S.
has 2.3
billion acres of land. However, 375 million acres are in Alaska. The
land
area of the lower 48 states is approximately 1.9 billion acres.
To put things in perspective, keep in mind that California is 103
million
acres, Montana 94 million acres, Oregon 60 million acres and Maine 20
million acres.Despite all the hand wringing over sprawl and
urbanization,
only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to
3
percent of the land area in the U.S.

Surely that depends on how you define 'developed'. Farmland has
been developed for farming, pastureland for grazing, and large
areas have been developed for silviculture (relevant to this ng).


Rural Residential Land-This category comprises nearly all sprawl and
subdivisions along with farmhouses scattered across the country The
total
acreage for rural residential is 73 million acres. Of this total, 44
million
acres are lots of 10 or more acres.

Developed and rural residential make up 139 million acres, or 6.1
percent of
total land area in the U.S. This amount of land is not insignificant
until
you consider that we planted more than 80 million acres of feeder
corn and
another 75 million acres of soybeans (95 percent of which are
consumed by
livestock, not tofu eaters) last year alone. These two crops affect
more of
the land area of the U.S. than all the urbanization, rural
residential,
highways, railroads, commercial centers, malls, industrial parks and
golf
courses combined.

See?


Cropland- About 349 million acres in the U.S. are planted for crops.
This is
the equivalent of about four states the size of Montana. Four crops
--
feeder corn (80 million acres), soybeans (75 million acres), alfalfa
hay (61
million acres) and wheat (62 million acres) -- make up 80 percent of
total
crop acreage. All but wheat are primarily used to feed livestock.

The amount of land used to produce all vegetables in the U.S. is less
than 3
million acres.

ISTR that we import a lot of fruit and vegetables too.


Range and Pasture Land- Some 788 million acres, or 41.4 percent of
the U. S.
excluding Alaska, are grazed by livestock. This is an area the size
of 8.3
states the size of Montana. Grazed lands include rangeland, pasture
and
cropland pasture. More than 309 million acres of federal, state and
other
public lands are grazed by domestic livestock. Another 140 million
acres are
forested lands that are grazed.

See? Developed for grazing.


Forest Land- Forest lands comprise 747 million acres. Of these lands,
some
501 million acres are primarily forest (minus lands used for grazed
forest
and other special categories).

Does that include land developed for silviculture?


The USDA report concludes that urbanization and rural residences
(subdivisions) "do not threaten the U.S. cropland base or the level
of
agricultural production." This does not mean sprawl doesn't have
impacts
where it occurs. But the notion that sprawl is the greatest threat to
biodiversity is absolutely false.

The U.S cropland base and agricultural production do not contribute
to biodiversity. They reduce it.

Hey, he have to eat, we need fibers, we need wood and so on. I'm
not saying that developement is all or even primarily bad. But let's
be honest with ourselves and not pretend that a soybean field or
a tree farm is biodiverse, OK? That would be like claiming farmed
salmon to be indicative of a healthy riparian environment.

--

FF

wrote in message
oups.com...
Mel: I did not say "sprawl is the greatest threat to biodiversity. . .

You're right. What you said was, to paraphrase, human expansion=wiped out
competative species=ultimate loss of world livability.

." I did say, relative to the perceived deer population "explosion",
it is indicative of the consequences of human/urban development. No
great leap to conclusions here.

That is provided you are comfortable with making conclusions based on
limited perception. The keyword here is perceived. It's not like deer are
running rampant through the streets of the major metropolitan areas of our
nation. What is actually happening is more and more people are moving to
and expanding the suburbanized areas thus increasing the likelyhood of
crossing the paths with wildlife. However, like I previously stated...
"urbanized" areas only accounts for a little over 6 percent of the total
area of land. Before we can continue we must come to an agreement on the
definition of "urbanize".

Main Entry: ur·ban·ize
Pronunciation: '&r-b&-"nIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -ized; -iz·ing
1 : to cause to take on urban characteristics urbanized areas

Main Entry: ur·ban
Pronunciation: '&r-b&n
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin urbanus, from urbs city
: of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city

For that matter, to take up your well-enumerated points, our industrial
farming is hardly a boon to biodiversity. Given that so many more
acres of land are devoted to this kind of urbanized development (and
modern industial agriculture is not a "rural" enterprise in anything
other than location) I would say your logic only reinforces my
argument.

Once again, refer to above definition. Farmer Bob living in an 1800 sq ft
house sitting on 2000 acres hardly constitutes a city. As far as your
arguement goes, you maintain that human/urban developement has created an
imbalance resulting in an "explosion" in the deer population. I disagree.
I'm free to do so chiefly due to the fact this is all suppostion in the
first place. I maintain that increased occupancy in once rural areas has
simply increased the likelyhood of deer/human encounters. I'll even conceed
that a very very small temporary imbalance may be occurring but will
eventually correct itself.... as it always has.

The point of my previous post was to illustrate these facts- 3% urban
(city) + 3.1% rural residential = 6.1% That leaves 93.9% of total land area
that isn't considered developed (i.e. built upon~happy Fred?) or 1.76
billion acres of land of which deer and other wildlife COMMONLY reside. You
either maintain that a 6.1% developement over the course of 200-300 years
has caused an explosion that the other 93.9% cannot contain or you must
admit that it's a limited perspective thus admitting to an inability to "see
the big picture".

mel wrote:
....
That is provided you are comfortable with making conclusions based on
limited perception. The keyword here is perceived. It's not like deer are
running rampant through the streets of the major metropolitan areas of our
nation. What is actually happening is more and more people are moving to
and expanding the suburbanized areas thus increasing the likelyhood of
crossing the paths with wildlife. ...

But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for
almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in
many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of
ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some
areas are literally "run over" even well inside very well developed
areas.

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for
almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in
many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of
ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some
areas are literally "run over" even well inside very well developed
areas.

Once again Duane it's a matter of perspective. Game commission statistics
are gathered from known numbers of "harvested" deer. It's physically
impossible to actually count the deer. These statistics are skewed based on
a limited amount of information. Taking into account the increasing
popularity of the sport, surely you can see how an increased "harvest" can
be misconstrued as an increase in overall population. Furthermore, game
management for the sole purpose of increasing deer population by land owners
who depend on the income from deer leases can also contribute to this.

However, we are not simply discussing an increase in the overall population
of game. Intentional or unintentional. We are discussing the plausibility
of an "explosion" of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline in the
livability of our world. In essence.... a plague of deer.

You can argue this from whatever perspective you wish. You can say an
increase in the deer population means we are doing something wrong.... or
you can say the increase means we are doing something right. Until I see
the browse lines in all the wooded areas at 6 feet I don't intend to be too
concerned.

Mel: read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer
populations due to

In article . com,
wrote:

read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer
populations

What about moose explosions?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/moose.asp

djb

--
"The thing about saying the wrong words is that A, I don't notice it, and B,
sometimes orange water gibbon bucket and plastic." -- Mr. Burrows

Mel says: "We are discussing the plausibility
of an 'explosion' of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline
in the
livability of our world."

Read my posts again--I am not arguing that deer populations have
exploded. I have said that the major reason for any increase, if there
is one, is likely the activity of our species, to wit, "urbanization",
and that this activity does reduce the livability of our planet. I do
not limit the term "urban" to what occures in cities. Rather, it is the
wide range of human activities which, obviously and subtly, change
natural environments for our benefit, and which, in this age, are on
the "urban" end of the continuum (with the possible exception of those
quiet, tail-less neanders known to lurk here-abouts.)

I include in this category all industrial processes, and specifically
those of industrial agriculture, practiced on 349 million acres (that's
about 18% of the lower 48, BTW, if I use the figures you provided). I
include agriculture because we seem to have a terribly difficult time
thinking of farming as a industrial process when, in all likelihood,
your hypothetical farmer living in his hypothetical 1800 s.f. probably
tills, chemically treats, and otherwise manipulates better than 2000
acres of cropland (and in some parts of the country, many thousands
more), or oversees the production and feeding of thousands of head of
cattle/hogs/chickens--a scale of activity far beyond what is
traditionally thought of as "rural". Add to this 18% the additional
acreage affected by our use of that developed (built-upon?) 6%
(effluent, erosion, pollution, habitat disruption, etc.), and it's fair
to say we have a direct impact on better than 25% of the land mass (and
we haven't even begun to talk about air or water). The world is not so
simple that the consequences of our actions are confined to the merely
6% of "built" environment.

The fact that our activities are beneficial to a few species besides
our own does not mean we should ignore the consequences to the rest.
While our "development" may contribute to the increased viability (for
how long is yet unknown) of some species--deer--it is known to be
profoundly detrimental to very many more. This attitude of complacency
is what I call myopia. No credible source denies the decline and
extinction of species now occuring on the earth is due in large part to
human activity; this is no reason for celebration.

Dan

"Dave Balderstone" wrote in message
tone.ca...
In article . com,
wrote:

read my posts again--I do not posit an "actual" explosion in deer
populations

What about moose explosions?

http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/moose.asp

djb

Deer kill moose, too. Our population is greatly affected with brainworm, a
parasite which does not kill deer. As the core population was transplanted
from Canada, we often blame the DNR for not picking Finnish moose, where
_brain_ worm would be no problem...

wrote in message
oups.com...


The fact that our activities are beneficial to a few species besides
our own does not mean we should ignore the consequences to the rest.
While our "development" may contribute to the increased viability (for
how long is yet unknown) of some species--deer--it is known to be
profoundly detrimental to very many more. This attitude of complacency
is what I call myopia. No credible source denies the decline and
extinction of species now occuring on the earth is due in large part to
human activity; this is no reason for celebration.


One can only suppose you and your like would have killed the first iguana to
haul up on the Galapagos.

wrote:
....
your hypothetical farmer living in his hypothetical 1800 s.f. probably
tills, chemically treats, and otherwise manipulates better than 2000
acres of cropland (and in some parts of the country, many thousands
more), or oversees the production and feeding of thousands of head of
cattle/hogs/chickens--a scale of activity far beyond what is
traditionally thought of as "rural". ...

In most of that tilled acreage, the only real difference is that the
same acreage is now farmed by fewer individuals, not that the acreage
itself wasn't farmed. Tillage practices such as low- and no-till are
indeed much more prevalent and disturb the soil far less than
conventional tillage of even 20 years ago. In that sense it is, indeed,
more "rural" than before. W/ the advent of fairly sizable acreages
devoted to the Conservation Reserve, quite significant areas are, in
fact, now back into near pre-farming condition and forbs and other
native species are returning. There are, of course, exotics in both
flora and fauna that are unavoidable given imports over the years...

mel wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

But there's no doubt (simply check the game commission statistics for
almost any state) that the total numbers of deer are up---well up in
many places, owing for at least a major extent, to the combination of
ready food supply and no or very limited predatory pressures. Some
areas are literally "run over" even well inside very well developed
areas.

Once again Duane it's a matter of perspective. Game commission statistics
are gathered from known numbers of "harvested" deer. It's physically
impossible to actually count the deer. These statistics are skewed based on
a limited amount of information. Taking into account the increasing
popularity of the sport, surely you can see how an increased "harvest" can
be misconstrued as an increase in overall population. Furthermore, game
management for the sole purpose of increasing deer population by land owners
who depend on the income from deer leases can also contribute to this.

However, we are not simply discussing an increase in the overall population
of game. Intentional or unintentional. We are discussing the plausibility
of an "explosion" of epic proportions that is indicative of a decline in the
livability of our world. In essence.... a plague of deer.

You can argue this from whatever perspective you wish. You can say an
increase in the deer population means we are doing something wrong.... or
you can say the increase means we are doing something right. Until I see
the browse lines in all the wooded areas at 6 feet I don't intend to be too
concerned.

At least here, game population statistics are developed from far more
than just harvest counts and include detailed statistical sampling
counts. These are done as part of the management of all game species
for both control and to develop understanding of needs for maintaining
stable populations. In some instances, such as deer, its primarily a
control issue. In others such as the greater prairie chicken, it's a
development/retention issue.

There are a few individual land owners who "farm" deer for hunting
purposes, but they're the minority by far...the revenue lost to damage
caused to crops by excessive numbers far outweighs the hunting revenue
(again, at least here where it is a largely agricultural-based
economy--forested areas in the farther north/east that are non-farming
may well be biased the other way).

When writing the previous, I was thinking of areas in TN/VA where I was
that indeed, the forage depredation in areas of Lynchburg was really
nearly to the point you describe. Oak Ridge, TN, is another area which
owing to the large DOE reservation w/ no hunting for a long time the
numbers had simply gotten out of hand.

The point I was making was simply that w/ areas where predators are
removed and other means for harvesting aren't there, the numbers rise to
the point of being far greater than they would be for the same area
otherwise. This is an imbalance. Is it an indication of greater or
lesser "livability", whatever that is, I don't know. I guess that
depends on whether you're a deer or a displaced predator.

Dan wrote-

The world is not so simple that the consequences of our actions are
confined to the merely 6% of "built" environment.

Yet you insinuate it is simple enough to be unable to withstand the
consequences of our actions... interesting. Do you know that Mount St.
Helens emitted more pollutants in a single day of eruption than all the
vehicles in the entire state of California did in 2000 which incidentally
was the highest known year for emissions for that state?

No credible source denies the decline and
extinction of species now occurring on the earth is due in large part to
human activity; this is no reason for celebration.

Nor is there a credible source that proves it to be so. This whole notion
that
somehow we are the alien species and not a legitimate part of the natural
order of things
is ludicrous. Species became extinct before we became "industrialized" and
at what rate
we simply do not know. Nor do we have a firm grasp on the current rate.

Let's look at your argument for a moment and try to see "The Big Picture".

You see an increase in the deer population. You've stated that you suspect
it was
due to the decline of a competing species, a herbivore, due to the actions
of man. You've stated
it points to the general decline in the livability of our world.

What I see is this... if in fact there is an increase in the deer population
isn't that "nature" correcting the imbalance?
Wouldn't the loss of a major competing species that kept the vegetation in
check without any sort of correction
in itself be considerably more damaging? Doesn't the very correction of
increased deer population
prove that nature can and will mend itself?

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 15:50:47 +0000, mel wrote:

Dan wrote-

The world is not so simple that the consequences of our actions are
confined to the merely 6% of "built" environment.

Yet you insinuate it is simple enough to be unable to withstand the
consequences of our actions... interesting. Do you know that Mount St.
Helens emitted more pollutants in a single day of eruption than all the
vehicles in the entire state of California did in 2000 which incidentally
was the highest known year for emissions for that state?

Since 99.9% of all species have gone extinct before man came along, it's
hard to understand how we could compete with nature in this regard.

http://www.lassp.cornell.edu/newmme/science/extinction.html
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry?id=30472

- Doug
--

To escape criticism--do nothing, say nothing, be nothing." (Elbert Hubbard)

mel wrote:

only 66 million acres are considered developed lands. This amounts to 3
percent of the land area in the U.S.

One thing I didn't see you mention, which piqued my curiosity, is what
percentage of all this land is actually arable in the first place. If a
jillion million acres aren't urbanized and they aren't in use for farming
or grazing, etc., that doesn't mean they're wide open habitat for, say,
deer.

I'd say, in fact, looking at the specific question of deer, that you just
about have to limit your range of possible habitats to the places where
trees would be growing if people weren't there. I don't think deer used to
roam the great plains, did they? I don't think they used to live in the
Mojave. Don't think, but don't really know. I'm asking a question, not
making a statement here. It just seems that analysis isn't taking into
account the vast tracts of land out west that aren't very liveable, which
are bound to eat up a noteworthy portion of the available area for all of
the endeavors enumerated as uses for land.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/