PDA

View Full Version : 115 Groups Ask Obama's Ag Secretary to End Wildlife Killing



AmiableLabs
01-16-2009, 04:09 PM
115 Groups Ask Obama's Ag Secretary to End Wildlife Killing
Last Update: 1/03 12:59 am

WASHINGTON, DC, January 2, 2008 (ENS) - A coalition of 115 conservation, animal protection, ranching, and faith-based organizations from across the United States today sent a letter to President-elect Barack Obama's nominee for agriculture secretary asking that he halt the government slaughter of millions of wild animals, including wolves, coyotes, bears, cougars, and prairie dogs.

The letter faxed to Tom Vilsack requests that he reform the Agriculture Department's wildlife "management" policies that the groups said "for too long have focused on exterminating, rather than protecting, wildlife."

Each year the U.S. Department of Agriculture's "secretive" Wildlife Services kills millions of wild animals, "primarily on behalf of agribusiness," the coalition wrote in its letter to Vilsack, a two-term Iowa governor.

"Wildlife Services has much blood on its hands. The agency is committing crimes against animals that make Michael Vick's Bad Newz Kennels look like doggy day care," said Brian Vincent, communications director for the wildlife protection group Big Wildlife, a project of the Earth Island Institute.

"Most Americans have no idea their tax dollars are used to brutalize countless bears, cougars, wolves, and coyotes," Vincent said.

"Animals are shot from airplanes and helicopters, poisoned, gassed in their dens, bludgeoned after capture in steel leghold traps, strangled in wire snares, and pursued with hounds or lured to bait stations and then shot," the groups told Vilsack in their letter.

In 2007, Wildlife Services killed 2.4 million animals, including 121,565 carnivores.

The agency reported it spent more than $100 million in 2007 to kill wildlife, most of which was funded by taxpayers.

Among those animals killed in 2007 - 90,262 coyotes, 2,277 gray foxes, 2,412 red foxes, 2,090 bobcats, 1,133 cats, 552 dogs, 577 badgers, and 340 gray wolves.

In 2007, Wildlife Services killed over 37,000 animals using aircraft.

An agency environmental assessment for eastern Colorado conducted in 1999 shows that many wounded animals may be left to die. Because Wildlife Services uses snowfall to track coyotes in early spring, agents may kill pregnant or lactating females, leaving pups to starve.

The letter to Vilsack explains the coalition's objections to toxic chemicals used to kill predators. Sodium monofluoroacetate, commonly known as Compound 1080, a rat poison developed during World War II, and sodium cyanide are used by Wildlife Services.

"1080 is so lethal a single teaspoon can kill 100 people, and it is persistent in the environment," the coalition told Vilsack. "The agency also sets M-44 devices, spring-loaded, baited mechanisms that release sodium cyanide into the mouth of any animal who disturbs the device."

"Sodium cyanide and 1080 present serious national security risks," the coalition writes. "The FBI has listed both as "super poisons" that are "most likely to be used by terrorists or for malicious intent."

"Wildlife Services is a perfectly Orwellian name for an agency that serves wildlife with cyanide baits, lead bullets, and steel leghold traps," said Michael Robinson, conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity in Silver City, New Mexico.

In 2005, Robinson authored a detailed history of the agency titled "Predatory Bureaucracy: The Extermination of Wolves and the Transformation of the West."

The coalition's letter explains that Wildlife Services' killing program disrupts the environment by ignoring the importance of carnivores. As "keystone species," carnivores play a pivotal role in sustaining ecological integrity and preserving species' diversity, they said.

Large carnivores regulate deer and elk numbers, as well as smaller mammal populations. Wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone National Park has benefited bears, foxes, beavers and songbirds, among other animals, as well as trees.

A 2007 study done by forestry researchers at Oregon State University, supports theories about "cascades" of ecological damage that can be caused when key predators, in this case, wolves, are removed from an ecosystem, and show that recovery is possible when the predators are returned.

Yet, ongoing Wildlife Services persecution of wolves continues to harm these and other wildlife species across the West.

The coalition suggests non-lethal solutions that are less expensive and more effective at reducing conflicts than killing. "Ranchers who use guard dogs, llamas, burros, or who mix cattle and sheep report fewer or no predation problems," they wrote to Vilsack.

Nighttime penning, penning during lambing and calving season, and removing livestock carcasses from pastures also reduce conflicts, the coalition suggests in addition to strobes and sirens to keep predators away.

Members of the groups say funds spent on killing wildlife would be better used to educate and aid ranchers, farmers, and others to upgrade their fencing or assist them with utilizing non-lethal techniques.

"Most Americans support conserving a diversity of native wildlife," says the coalition, citing public opinion studies conducted in 1996 and 2000. The letter to Vilsack declares, "The activities of Wildlife Services are out of step with those values."

Signatories on the letter to Agriculture Secretary Nominee Tom Vilsack include: Action for Animals Action for Animals Network Alabama Wildlife Advocates Alaska Wildlife Alliance All-Creatures.org Allegheny Defense Project Alliance for Animals Alliance for the Wild Rockies American Lands Alliance Animal Advocates of the Inland Northwest Animal Defense League of Arizona Animal Protection of New Mexico Animal Protection Voters Animal Welfare Institute BARK Bear League Bear River Watershed Council Big Wildlife Biodiversity Conservation Alliance Black Hills Mountain Lion Foundation Blue Mountains Biodiversity Project Born Free USA Boulder-White Clouds Council Buffalo Field Campaign Californians for Western Wilderness Cascadia Wildlands Project Center for Biological Diversity Center for Native Ecosystems Christians for Environmental Stewardship Chico For Animal Rights Conservation Congress Conservation Northwest Conservation Science Institute Cougar Fund Creation Care Study Program Eco-Eating Ecological Conservation Organization Environmental Protection Information Center Footloose Montana Forest Issues Group Friends of McKay Gila Conservation Coalition Grand Canyon Trust Great Old Broads for Wilderness Great Plains Restoration Council HEAL Heartwood Hells Canyon Preservation Council High Uintas Preservation Council Higher Ground-Animal Advocacy Humane Voters of Arizona In Defense of Animals Jewish Vegetarians of North America Kentucky Heartwood Kind Choices Kinship Circle Klamath Basin Audubon Society Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center Lands Council Last Chance for Animals Arizona League of Humane Voters Maine Animal Coalition MassPAWS Mountain Cats Trust New Dawn Montana Farm Sanctuary New Hampshire Animal Rights League Newton County Wildlife Association Northwest Animal Rights Network Options for Southern Oregon Orange County People for Animals Oregon Cougar Action Team Oregon Humane Society Oregon Wildlife Federation Pacific Biodiversity Institute PEACE~People for the End of Animal Cruelty and Exploitation Power of One Animal Rights Group Prairie Dog Pals Progressive Animal Welfare Society Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility Public Lands Without Livestock Ranchers for Rural Responsibility Restoring Eden Rocky Mountain Animal Defense Selkirk Conservation Alliance Sheep Mountain Alliance Sierra Club Sierra Club Tehipite Chapter Siskiyou Project Soda Mountain Wilderness Council Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance Southwest Environmental Center St. Louis Animal Rights Team Student Animal Legal Defense Fund The Humane Society of the United States The Rewilding Institute TrapFree Oregon Umpqua Watersheds Utah Environmental Congress Vegetarian Advocates W.O.L.F. Sanctuary Western Nebraska Resources Council Western Watersheds Project Western Wildlife Conservancy Whidbey Environmental Action Network Wild Virginia Wild West Institute Wilderness Watch Wildlands CPR Wildlife Alliance of Maine Wildlife Watch Wildlife Watchers WolfWood Refuge and Adoption Center World Temperate Rainforest Network

LINK to original article. (http://groups.google.com/group/AR-News/browse_thread/thread/906495d421b57171?hl=en)

Doug Moore
01-16-2009, 04:45 PM
move to the POTUS forum. Or start your own forum where you can vent all this, I do not care what your views are, this forum is for dog related topics. Many people don't even hunt so your argument that his impacts everyone is not a valid argument either. Most people on here may hunt, I know I do, but I still don't want to read this stuff every day. I have a TV and can get this stuff from CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, HN, etc etc. I do not however have a source for dog training advice and information. I come here for that.

It had Obama in the thread line. If you did'nt want to read it don't click on it, simple as that. I appreciate the link because I don't sit by a television and watch CNN, Fox etc... How about the flyers shot at HT, FT or daily training for that matter? How long will it be before they specifically go after those? Thanks for the info Kevin.

twall
01-16-2009, 04:49 PM
What does this specifically have to do with retrievers?

Jeff,

The attacks by the animal-rights groups are aimed to divide and conquer. Outdoorsman are a very diverse group of people and it is easy to pick off small segments at a time. I don't do that so why should I care? Eventually, they will get to an aspect of the outdoors we cherish. That is what it has to do with retrievers.

Tom

Golddogs
01-16-2009, 04:57 PM
I thought it should be on the political forum at first also, but "The Jewish Vegetarians of North America " signed this so it must be of importance to training a retiever

Hew
01-16-2009, 05:03 PM
move to the POTUS forum. Or start your own forum where you can vent all this, I do not care what your views are, this forum is for dog related topics. Many people don't even hunt so your argument that his impacts everyone is not a valid argument either. Most people on here may hunt, I know I do, but I still don't want to read this stuff every day. I have a TV and can get this stuff from CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, HN, etc etc. I do not however have a source for dog training advice and information. I come here for that.
Sweet fancy Moses. Give it a rest already. If you don't want to read it, then DON'T READ IT. I didn't want to read the thread you started gloating about Obama, so I didn't click on it. I didn't want to read the thread you started about mud motors, so I didn't click on it. I didn't want to read your thread asking what the Georgia waterfowl regs were this year (apparently that was info that Georgia holds closer to their vest than the Normandy invasion plans), so I didn't click on it. I didn't want to read your thread about over/under shotgun cases, so I didn't click on it. See how that works? I'm sorry, what was it you were saying about this being a forum for only dog-related topics....

Howard N
01-16-2009, 05:12 PM
I look at this as retriever related.

If they ban hunting they'll ban field trialing.

I love field trialing.

jeff t.
01-16-2009, 05:17 PM
What is it we are supposed to do with this info?

What purpose is served by posting this info on the main board that is not also served by posting it in the POTUS forum?

Since Chris has gone to the trouble of creating a separate forum, why isn't it good enough to put this sort of thing on the POTUS forum and have everyone understand that is the place to go if we want to read this stuff? (just as everyone understands where to go to find info on events, items for sale, litter listings, etc.)

I don't get it.

Jeff

Hew
01-16-2009, 05:21 PM
"thread you started gloating about Obama"

HEW could you please post a link to this for me to reread my previous thread? I can't seem to recall this. Also all the posts you listed were over a 3-6 month period not continous daily SPAMMING of this forum.
Sure, here ya go: http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?t=32461

Here's part of what you wrote about Obama a day after the election:

Looks like contrary to some of the posts on here he (OBAMA) is not so Left Winged that he supports the HSUS's banning of domesticated animals. I am not saying he will be force fetching said dog, or using an e-collar on it; or doing swim-by in the shadow of the Washington Monument :grin:, all I am saying is that the sky is not falling and he is not going to come and take Rover away from anyone.

Ironically enough, the thread you started is the EXACT same type of thread as this one that you're so upset about. The only difference is that YOU started it; not Kevin.

Doug Moore
01-16-2009, 05:26 PM
What purpose is served by posting this info on the main board that is not also served by posting it in the POTUS forum?

Jeff


I for one don't go to the POTUS forum because I have nothing to add and most of it I probably would'nt understand or care to. However topics such as this I find interesting and informative. What will I do with the info? Probably nothing just as everyone else but at least I am somewhat informed about them.

Patrick Johndrow
01-16-2009, 06:25 PM
I look at this as retriever related.

If they ban hunting they'll ban field trialing.

I love field trialing.

yep, yep....we are all tied together on this one

John Kelder
01-16-2009, 06:42 PM
It should be noted that the earlier comment of "divide and conquer" seems to be working on this thread .
When I see a thread with a title that doesn't interest me , I do not open it . As an example , "tequila" in a recent thread title .While I would have opened it if it said
"FREE TEQUILA IN INDEPENDENCE MO. TONIGHT " ,it didn't ,so I moved on .

If it works for me , it may very well work for others .WE all come here because of our dogs, and we are a diverse bunch to be sure .And try to keep in mind what is not your cup of tea ,may be of keen interest to another . So if it has broad appeal the General forum isn't out of the question .
If it is point specific on a totally unrelated topic to dogs and pure politics , POTUS PLACE is where that belongs .

Brad n Drake
01-16-2009, 06:45 PM
they can do what ever they want. I'm a trapper and a predator hunting among many other things. Always will be. No law will change that. I believe in conservation, bag limits and many of the regulations. If you ban something because some people don't like it I will follow my own laws and am willing to risk prison time for it.

Devlin
01-16-2009, 08:09 PM
I look at this as retriever related.

If they ban hunting they'll ban field trialing.

I love field trialing.


yep, yep....we are all tied together on this one

Yes, and yes.

And BTW: I don't visit POTUS because...well...I just don't. My time on the site is spent in this forum and, like many of you, I appreciate the diversity of information and opinion we get here. As has been said...if you don't like the subject header, don't open the thread. IMHO, this particular thread is important for all of us, regardless of whether we hunt or trial or both.

Thank you, Kevin, for posting it.

Clint Watts
01-16-2009, 08:33 PM
I for one am glad that this thread was started, it has made for some good reading.

Hoosier
01-16-2009, 08:38 PM
When you don't have a point argue about the way it was presented

john fallon
01-16-2009, 08:50 PM
Putting aside where it should be posted for a moment
Where were they with their letters for the past 8 years?
Where was our indignation during "W's" watch ?

How about it Kevin, where were we?

john

YardleyLabs
01-16-2009, 08:55 PM
This actually sounds like an interesting issue marred by an (intentionally) inflammatory title that suggests that the groups are looking to ban hunting when what they are complaining about is the wildlife service (not hunters) shooting, trapping and poisoning a variety of predators. I don't know why it wasn't posted on the POTUS Forum where there could be some discussion without the constraints requested in the main forum. I guess Kevin is afraid that those who avoid POTUS are missing their mandatory minimum daily dose of hysteria. Chris nicely asked that political discussions be taken to POTUS. The overwhelming majority of respondents to the two polls on this subject have praised this action and credited it with making the forum a nicer place to visit. What is the problem?

Hoosier
01-16-2009, 09:09 PM
Maybe everyone should PM Blake before posting to get his approval. That would prevent a lot of this bickering. Would that be okay with you Blake. If you don't like this post let me know and I'll delete it.

Pete
01-16-2009, 09:23 PM
I'm glad most of you don't go to POTUS.
Thats where I go to make a fool of myself:p

labman63
01-16-2009, 09:43 PM
The weight of a Sherpa bag thread was better reading!

JusticeDog
01-16-2009, 10:50 PM
Since there is a Potus Place, why not put everything in its place? Should the lab puppies sales area contain sales information for a boat or winger?

The sky has not fallen regards-

AmiableLabs
01-17-2009, 12:01 AM
Putting aside where it should be posted for a moment Where were they with their letters for the past 8 years?
Where was our indignation during "W's" watch ?
Do a search, provided they have not been deleted. I have been monitoring AR-NEWS for almost two decades now, and post them here and at the Refuge whenever I think they are informative. Along with relevant press releases from the USSA (formerly WLFA), DU, and NRA.

This has NOTHING to do with who is in charge. As I said over on POTUS, I wish Obama success in improving this great nation. We need it. Four years is too long to be miserable. Then after four years, I hope we conservatives can beat him on ideas rather than a track record of failure. I will always put the welfare of this nation and my loved ones over partisan politics.


I for one don't go to the POTUS forum because I have nothing to add and most of it I probably would'nt understand or care to. However topics such as this I find interesting and informative. What will I do with the info? Probably nothing just as everyone else but at least I am somewhat informed about them.
YOU get it. It is all about being informed. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less. Just being informed.

Some of us will ignore the information. Some of us will act on it. Some of us will wait until we get more info before we act. Some of us require the situation to get more dire before we finally say "enough." How do we act? We join the NRA. Or we call our congresscritter. Or we donate money to the USSA. Or we volunteer for DU.

There seems to be a hundred ways to act to protect our sports of hunting and HTs/FTs. But only one way to not act.

Paul Rainbolt
01-17-2009, 07:28 AM
Kevin you are a great American, Thanks

badbullgator
01-17-2009, 08:43 AM
Fine if that is what you guys want to use this forum for. I for one believe that many people w/ a vast knowledge of dog training and general dog knowledge will become less frequent due to all of this. To me it is the equivalent of spam. How many people read this stuff AND ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT!?

I bet I have read 25 posts just like this and it does not inspire me to DO anything. I would like to know what tangible good these posts do? Can someone tell me one thing anyone has actually done after reading one these "informative" posts to change the outcome of what these posts predict is going to happen?

Do not get me wrong, I am not saying I agree nor disagree w/ the content. All I am saying is there are 1000's of internet forums about politics, many of them for politics and the outdoors, use one them. That is all I am saying, so save the speeches about how I am not a true sport'smen or whatnot.


God I hope this means you will be here less. WTF do you want exactly? It is OK for you to post your stuff but anyone you disagree with you throw a fit about. IT IS SIMPLE JUST READ WHAT YOU WANT AND DON"T OPEN THE REST!

Thanks for the infor Kevin

Brevard Arndt
01-17-2009, 09:57 AM
I don't even click on the POTUS forum.

I don't hunt, but I once did, don't want to see it out lawed.

Not too worried about the coyotes becoming extinct from wildlife management. Think Cockroaches.

I am concerned about the warped, however well intentioned, minds of some of the AR folks,
they are a very noisy, constant chattering group whose numbers are few, but always running their mouth. Unfortunately, the squeaky wheel gets the oil. In other words we need to be more active in letter writting and issuing press releases espousing our thoughts.

Yes, I know that the major theme for the hunting related hunting games has been to keep quiet about it and avoid as much publicity as possible in order to keep a "low profile", under the radar, etc. But when the loud mouths have the attention of appointed officals that can "do us in", then we should pay heed and speak up, or else we will be relegated to "acceptable" retriever activities, like "Big Air", "Frisbee games", Dancing dogs, obedience, and such.

There is no doubt in my mind that the long range goal of HSUS is to prohibit hunting and the commercial production of meat animals in the United States. To achive this goal they will use any tactic they can.

SeniorCoot
01-17-2009, 11:40 AM
List reads like as Who's Who of Anti most anything i do or like--HSUS is by far the most insideous Org since Walt Disney Inc was started.

zeus3925
01-17-2009, 12:42 PM
This belongs over at POTUS. No dog training pertinent info here. Throw it over to potus where they thrive on red meat

Chris Atkinson
01-17-2009, 01:02 PM
I've moved it, after allowing it to sit on RTF for a decent amount of time.

I've learned a lesson on this, as there's no way, as long as we have a "political subforum" to make a black and white ruling on when a political topic belongs on RTF and when it belongs on the political forum.

For those who wonder why GDG is permissible on RTF, yet the non-retriever-related political stuff is on its own separate forum: Here's the difference. Political debate on RTF has shown to create a hateful atmosphere with some pretty meann-spirited communication in a good portion of the threads. I don't like to wade through it and neither do many of us.

Yeah, you can say "if you don't like it, don't click it"....but there comes a breaking point, based upon the rate at which new topics are posted per day or per hour. When the main RTF forum gets multiple political posts in a day, it runs many of the non-political topics off the main page, making it more challenging for those not interested in political stuff, to find the new topics.

Guys and gals, I'm in a no-win here. Can't make everybody happy.

Please be mindful of the following: Disagree, but do so with respect. Treat others as you, yourself would like to be treated. No profanity, pornography, defamation or other items.

If the political topic post rate declines, we'll possibly kill the POTUS subforum. It doesn't look like that is coming anytime soon! :cool:

Have fun all. Be good. Use RTF as if it were your own, but remember that you share it with others...so please keep it clean.

Chris

DSO
01-17-2009, 01:37 PM
Chris said when it is news and not opinion, and when a link is provided, it is okay to post here.
__________________
Kevin Walker

Is this in fact the standard? Seems pretty reasonable to me. If it's news and not op/ed what is the problem with putting it on RTF. I read about all kinds of news there... Plane crashes / State DOT's going green / poisonous dog food being recalled. Interesting and informative stuff. Why if it is news involving the government does it have to be moved? Where do you draw the line? There never seems to be a problem until the word "Obama" is in the title or the thread has something to do with gun control. If all threads having to do with government need to be on POTUS Place we better move the thread about the State DOT going green. News items have earned their place on the RTF. Read the title, if you don't like it don't open it and move on. Ignore the people and the threads you don't like. What's the hard part?

Danny

blakegober
01-17-2009, 03:59 PM
Corey,

I am not complaining about something I don't agree w/. Where in any of this did I say I don't agree w/ Kevin. ALL I AM SAYING IS THERE IS A PLACE FOR THIS STUFF. I don't care what the topic or point is, I just think things should go where they belong. That is all. No need to get so hateful or mad about it, what is wrong w/ wanting stuff to be posted where it goes? If it was in the correct forum he, you, or anyone else can anything they like, and I don't have to like it. I don't know where any of you came up w/ the fact that I don't agree so I don't want it here. I have never said that. All I said was that I thought it should go where it is intended. What problem do you see w/ putting these things under the correct heading?

Chris Atkinson
01-17-2009, 04:12 PM
Chris said when it is news and not opinion, and when a link is provided, it is okay to post here.
__________________
Kevin Walker

Is this in fact the standard? Seems pretty reasonable to me. If it's news and not op/ed what is the problem with putting it on RTF. I read about all kinds of news there... Plane crashes / State DOT's going green / poisonous dog food being recalled. Interesting and informative stuff. Why if it is news involving the government does it have to be moved? Where do you draw the line? There never seems to be a problem until the word "Obama" is in the title or the thread has something to do with gun control. If all threads having to do with government need to be on POTUS Place we better move the thread about the State DOT going green. News items have earned their place on the RTF. Read the title, if you don't like it don't open it and move on. Ignore the people and the threads you don't like. What's the hard part?

Danny

Danny,

I attempted to address, exactly what you wrote, in my post immediately above yours.

My apologies if you disagree.

Kevin's thread got lots of views before being moved.

Chris

DSO
01-17-2009, 04:50 PM
Danny,

I attempted to address, exactly what you wrote, in my post immediately above yours.

My apologies if you disagree.

Kevin's thread got lots of views before being moved.

Chris

Chris, I feel bad at where my post got entered. The last post on the thread before I started typing was from zeus3925. Started typing / got sidetracked and by the time I finished and hit send, your post got in a head of mine. You addressed many of my concerns and had I read your post prior to sending mine, I probably would not have posted at all. Thanks for all you do. I do think news items have there place on the RTF but I realize you need to strike a balance to keep things under control. If people could just follow your "golden rule" this would not likely be the problem it has turned into. Thanks again for all your effort my apologies for how everything shook out.

Danny

Marvin S
01-17-2009, 06:46 PM
If there was any reason to trust the anti's there could be fruitful discussions, but there is not.

Last week I read somewhere that a federal judge has banned de-listing the wolves around Jellystone, though that was in the original agreement approved. The wolves now have more packs than required, greater numbers, et al. But the anti's go to court to stop the de-listing. They prove they are not trustworthy, it's all about fund raising, so the Anti bureaucrats can avoid doing anything useful in life. In the meantime the wolves are killing healthy Elk to sustain their diet.

So let's analyze this - they want to stop the government trappers from taking the game - laudable goal as I think the ranchers & farmers need to do their own pest cleanup. But it is OK for a government agent to kill a Mountain Lion after it attacks one of their own doing their exercise in an area they don't belong. Am I missing something here, is my line of thinking wrong?

But while wer'e discussing this does anyone have a number for the trappers, I got some too darn healthy raccoons raising cane with our bird feeders, & I think they would make someone a great pelt for a hat.

We love the wildlife, & try to accomodate them as much as we can. There is nothing like waking to the sounds of Elk grazing outside your bedroom window & they are even more majestic during the day. But we do recognize that there is a necessity to harvest overpopulations in this manage the wildlife world. & one can do that while respecting wildlife's inherent right to do what they do.

& in closing, I respect what Chris does & know he does not like the give & take of these posts. But those who are so easily offended by posts of this nature are doing the sport no favor, regardless of title or content of posts of this nature. Life is about control of what we do, if there is no resistance to these people you will leave precious little heritage for those who follow you. I think the post should have stayed on the main forum but it will be easire to locate here.

AmiableLabs
01-17-2009, 09:35 PM
Everyone, in particular those who say this doe not apply to us, seems to be missing the salient point.

Read it closely. The antis are complaining about the USDA killing all wildlife (the article says "2.4 million"). Why should the government stop killing all wildlife? Because it includes 121,000 carnivores? You are not paying attention.

See, the talk about the carnivores is a ruse and you all seemed to have fallen for it. They also want the government to stop shooting ducks and geese and deer and rabbits and . . . .

There is a timeliness of this too. This would include the birds the USDA shoots near airports. You know, the birds that cause air disasters? Yes, those geese.

Richard Halstead
01-17-2009, 10:02 PM
I think after this weekends goose airline incident, they might think about a bounty on the geese that pose a problem to the flight paths. Put some blinds on Rikers Island to help police the over population.

zeus3925
01-17-2009, 10:48 PM
I think after this weekends goose airline incident, they might think about a bounty on the geese that pose a problem to the flight paths. Put some blinds on Rikers Island to help police the over population.

Let the Canadian napalm those snow geese