EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 23, 2020 8:54 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 294 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:13 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 785
Location: In the woods near Evergreen, Colorado
Iowanic wrote:
I'd like to go elk hunting some day: for elk cow.



When you're ready, and if you decide on Colorado as your destination, PM me. I can get you on the right track as to where to go. Used to hunt bulls, but these days I mostly hunt cows. The meat is indeed better. Still, if it is going to be "the hunt of a lifetime" for you, you probably should get a bull tag. The meat is still good and they are a sight to behold over your fireplace.

_________________
Vegetarian: Old Native American word meaning really bad hunter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:22 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16153
Location: Florida
CarolineTC wrote:
animallover wrote:
CarolineTC wrote:

'Legalized terrorist'

You must have spoke with Ante once upon a time, Caroline. He's spewed that noise-without-substance more then once. In fact, he started a thread based upon it. I'll see if I can bump it for those interested.

I'm curious of your world-view, actually.

A couple questions, if I may:

Which is the largest location ever to effectively use deer birth-control? Which state has implimented a state-wide use of these methods? How well did they work?

Who do you feel should pay for the implimenting of these deer birth-control methods? Should locals be able to decide for themselves what method they wish to use for deer-control?

Define what exactly you think 'sports' hunting is. Do you feel it's different then hunting strictly for food?

The Ante thread I mentioned has been bumped. For those actually interested in the numbers regarding hunting accidents, page 8 of that thread has some info.


Again no answer to the questions I have posted. If hunting is killing humans from DVA's because of so many deer provided for hunters recreational purpose and also DVA's peaks during the killing season then hunting industry is liable of human fatalities because its intentional, the hunters know DVA's will happen with so many deer and hunters in the woods terrorizing the animals. So unless you can give me the answer as to why your people are "producing deer" when you are claiming it's about "reduction" it means you have no answer and you know darn well that hunting has nothing to do with "reduction" of deer or "caring' about human lives lost in Deer Vehicle Accidents its about having enough deer to keep the killers happy year after year and the state raking in their blood money. There are so many Animal Rights organization and those who love our wildlife that are ready to help with the cost of IC deer birth control but DNR continue to reject it. . Anthony DeNicola of White Buffaolo Deer Slaughter company says killing deer is like mowing lawn, it has to be done year after year so which is it that you want Iwanic, the IC for long term deer herd reduction and reduce Deer Vehicle Accidents or to continue to kill for hunters sick amusement of destroying life with no end in sight as innocent humans continue to die from high DVA's ?

Again I ask why are hunters "producing" deer if its about "reduction"??

One thing I like to add, this is not abut your "right" to eat meat its about the truth, its about abolishing sports hunting so you go right on ahead and chow down on that diseased carcass and if you have read what I have wrote before I said everyone of those who kill the deer should eat the deer and eat it all not dump it to some pantries because they fear eating it themselves. .


You really need to think about what you are saying...deer are not "provided"....deer reproduce all by themselves....hence over populating, again all by themselves. Hunters keep populations in check since many so natural predators are not able to do so effectively for obvious reasons. Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low.

And fact that you cannot even conduct yourself without name calling speaks volumes about you and what you have to say.

You and your existence is also responsible for animals deaths, direct and indirect, most of which is a lot more inhumane than the deaths caused by hunters. You should really take a look at the deer, fawns, that are chopped up in little bits, maimed, mangled, left to die after they have been run over by combines....along with all the other hundreds or thousnads of animals. BTW...those are inhumane deaths.

You should really get your facts straight and stop being soooo self righteous. Your argument is weak, tired and old....as is the attitude. Do you honestly think that anyone here hasn't heard all the AR rhetoric before...over and over and over. And it still doesn't hold water.




"You really need to think about what you are saying...deer are not "provided"....deer reproduce all by themselves....hence over populating, again all by themselves. Hunters keep populations in check since many so natural predators are not able to do so effectively for obvious reasons. Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low." Iwonci

It's hunting (killing) and lethal "culling" is whats causing deer to have more fawn births and to top is off use of food plots and supplement feeding. Here is a video I did kind of for the fun of it to show how pathetic sports hunting people are with their food plots to grow large antlered deer plus remember the does are eating them too.

To the music of "this land is your land this land is my land for growing more and more big boned antlered deer....." (lol)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUf6yekFpeI


these are other quotes I listed yesterday that Iwonic and other wildlife killers either completely ignore or does not give me legit or straight answer rather they like to dance around it with abusrdity.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120


Here is more of the "adding deer" quotes. TX also among the highest in DVA's.

"Historically in all states, including West Virginia, hunting regulation have been restrictive during the period of deer restoration with mainly short buck-only season to protect does and encourage deer population growth." " Fundamentals of Deer Management W. VA.

(wow, why would you want "deer restoration" and "encourage population growth"??). Is it any wonder W. Va is one of the highest in DVA's?




"Managing for proper nutrition in white-tailed deer is important for good body condition, good fawn production and recruitment, and maximum antler growth. Good nutrition can be accomplished by doing three things that involve proper habitat management, supplemental feeding, and the planting of food plots." Deer Managemetn TX

P.129 "With supplemental feeding, it becomes very easy to maitain artificialy high deer densities and still obtain adequate results in terms of antler and body growth." Producing Quality Whitetails Revised Edition
Al Brothers and Murphy E. Ray, Jr. Edited by Charly McTee


"Hunters do not hunt and are not allowed to hunt if the numbers are in check or are low." Iwanic

But we all know that DNR will do their darndest to ensure there will be enough deer for wildlife serial killers to kill each year or the sports willdlife killers will start crying like babies because there was not enough deer to "harvest" that season and DNR will be making promises that next season we make sure there will be more deer because they don't to lose their customers who may go other states to kill deer.

Deer's natural predators are killed to keep the deer population high
[color=#0000BF]No that is NOT why predators are killed.


"Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX


What is this "in check"? that hunters love to use. Like "in check" to make sure there are abundance of deer for the sports wildlfife killers to kill for each season?

Does if there is not enough nutrients (but eating) will not give birth to twins and triplets and some will not birth at all. Its how nature keep natural balance where what hunting does is to create more deer to compensate for loss and sometimes over compensating.

IC deer birth control is the only honest way for long term deer herd reduction with no strings attached.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw

"It works and it works well"
"60% deer herd reduction"
"safe"

Plus IC is not "1,000 dollar a deer" like the hunting community likes to claim and in the long term will save many many innocent lives (human and non-human animals).


What do you mean by "name calling"? Because I call hunters "wildlife serial killers"? But that is what they are , they don't "hunt" they KILL. I like to "hunt" shed antlers but would never kill a living creatures and what you do is serial killing (killing more then one animals). Hunters KILL, but they hate that word that is why they say "harvest", "taken" or "hunting" when what they do is KILL . Even in the book called "Killing For Sports" how the Authur desribes serial killers sounds like he is describing sports hunters.
And you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY commission the deaths of animals. No one has a gun to your head. You have a choice not to but you do it anyway.
You also misapply the wrong definition of the term "sport"....which is again old, tired, and have been done before. Hunting is an "activity", which is another word for sport. It is not a sport like baseball or football.




Humans also die because of human existance and it reminds me of this quote I found a while back which makes so much sense when refuting with your absuridity.
Not that we are talking about humans but Your little statement here has no bearing on your responsibility for animal deaths. You ARE responsible for animal deaths. Period. You are responsible for inhumane animals deaths. You commission the inhumane deaths of animals.


"[1] If you live and pay taxes in an industrialized nation with a strong military, such as the United States, you inadvertently and indirectly, and hopefully unwillingly and regrettably, support the slaughter of innocent humans in the form of warfare in other countries (waged primarily for economic reasons; the economic reasons controversially thought to be also ‘national security’ reasons) and arms supply to violent militias, just like vegans inadvertently, unwillingly, and regrettably support the slaughter of innocent nonhumans by living and paying taxes in our animal-exploiting society."
This is the most ridiculous thing you have said yet. Living and paying taxes is your excuse for avoiding responsibility for the animals that die for your existence?? That is probably the lamest excuse I have heard yet.


Now lets do this again. Why are they producing deer if its about "reduction"? [/color][/quote]

You really need to lay off the U-Tube videos because you obviously don't know what is fact and what is not. All you are doing is parroting really old AR rhetoric and propaganda. And the AR tactic of copying bit and pieces of things to make it look like or say something it is not has already been exposed. The least you could do is find something a bit more up to date and something that hasn't already been proven wrong over and over again.

All you are doing is showing that you really have no clue about what you are talking about.

Your behavior, name calling and attacks are also a very poor reflection on vegan AR's....in fact it will definitely push people away from the message you are so poorly attempting to make. Not many people want to be part of a group with all that hate and nastiness.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 19, 2010 11:35 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16153
Location: Florida
Grizzly Bear wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
I'd like to go elk hunting some day: for elk cow.



When you're ready, and if you decide on Colorado as your destination, PM me. I can get you on the right track as to where to go. Used to hunt bulls, but these days I mostly hunt cows. The meat is indeed better. Still, if it is going to be "the hunt of a lifetime" for you, you probably should get a bull tag. The meat is still good and they are a sight to behold over your fireplace.


I was in Colorado about 8-9 yrs ago. I miserably attempted and failed skiing up in Breckenridge.
It was absolutely gorgeous up there as was the surrounding areas.
The only thing I spent time hunting was the outdoor hot tubs.
Does that make me a hunter?? It could be considered a sport. :-k :lol: :lol: :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:16 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
http://www.iowadnr.gov/wildlife/files/drhist.html


I'll tend to stick to Iowa and the midwestern states as my base of operations in this discussion; since their so deer...opps, I mean dear to my heart.

Info seems to suggest, Caroline, In Iowa, it's the habitat and climate that are the main factors in high-deer population; not hunting.


Well Iwonic , DNR is what most of us rename Division of Nature Rapers. (that is not offensive word for land can be "raped" look in a dictiionary). DNR is run by hunters and will always ensure there are abundance of deer for hunting opportunities . Sure Iowa have their farming but they have no intention of trying to reduce deer herd size and in fact I believe they are happy with their abundance even though Deer Vehicle Accidents has increased 17% and Iowans uses QDM as their source of information on how to keep good "deer management" and you have read many of QDM's quotes and see they love to use food plots, and talk about "producing" deer.

http://www.midwestfoodplots.com/index.htm

Remember these


"Because fawns are born at approximately a 1:1 sex ratio, more bucks maybe born each year. *Therefore, in some areas, you actually can increase the number of bucks born by shooting more does." Quality Deer Management

"Other habitat management practices that can improve the quantity and quality of forage available to deer (thus increasing carrying capacity)" Quality Deer Management

"With high quality habitat and increased nutrition, the percentage of doe fawns that breed their first fall increases (sometimes up to 25 percent).. Also, a higher percentage of yearling does produce two fawns instead of one." Quality Deer Management

*They know about CRE and use it to their advantage


With hunting they either encourage land/property owner to put food plots down to grow large antlered deer sort of like "partnership"

"If you are fortunate enough to have permission to hunt on someone else's private property; ask permission to establish a whitetail deer food plot and tell the owner of that hunting land exactly what you want and plan to do. If the hunting land owner is a farmer, you may even get some help with the site preparation and use of equipment. " QDM

or encourage hunters to buy land and start growing food plots to have your very own large antlered deer ( and again does eating these highly nutritious food will give more births add that with Compensatory Rebound Effect).


"- Property value. With the increased interest in hunting, more and more people look at rural property as an investment. Take a look at your local paper and if there is land for sale that has wildlife on it, you will not only notice them advertising it, but the price per acre is higher then other properties. Established Food Plots have the potential of increasing the value of your land.

- Hunting Opportunities. Let’s face it if you can tweak the nutritional plan of your local deer herd to maximize the genetic potential, it just makes the hunting that much more fun!"

http://www.midwestfoodplots.com/index_files/Page354.htm

so you can see they just want to kill deer for sports and have no interest in long term deer herd reduction as human continue to die from deer vehicle accident and DNR and hunters lies to the public that they are about "reducing" deer herd which they created themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 9:36 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
You really need to lay off the U-Tube videos because you obviously don't know what is fact and what is not. All you are doing is parroting really old AR rhetoric and propaganda. And the AR tactic of copying bit and pieces of things to make it look like or say something it is not has already been exposed. The least you could do is find something a bit more up to date and something that hasn't already been proven wrong over and over again.

All you are doing is showing that you really have no clue about what you are talking about.

Your behavior, name calling and attacks are also a very poor reflection on vegan AR's....in fact it will definitely push people away from the message you are so poorly attempting to make. Not many people want to be part of a group with all that hate and nastiness.
[/quote]


Sports hunters or "recreational" wildlife killers do not like the word "kill" being used but sorry that is what you all do for RECREATION, which is another word for amusement so hunters KILL for amusement. Plus every videos used are mine that I put together from my own research, visiting websites, hunting forums and watching uploads of hunters hunting videos. Remember that youtube is a haven for hunters and a great place to learn about hunters disgusting behaviors and of animals suffering. At first I was so disgusted by hunters snuff videos and even made a petiton to rid of it but because its "legal" its not easy to do so instead use it to help my cause. Look at this playlist I put together last year

"Sadism in America is sports hunting"

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p ... 6D45F88AEB

so far 10, 200 views and now I am putting a children hunting playlist. Omg you think adult are horrible shooter but these kids shoot to make daddy or adult wildlife killers happy and it does not matter where the deer is hit and how much the animals suffer. You can see the deer thrashing in pain and the little child go "I hit the deer daddy" and daddy says "good job" as if the deer is a rock and not a sentient being who feels terror, pain and suffering.

Also many of my videos that I put together are used by anti-hunters and I am no Peta nor HSUS both I am against. I am someone who loves wildlife and all sentient being and feel they do not deserve to suffer and die especially in the name of "sports" where many are left wounded and crippled for someone sick amusment and/or for trophy so they can count the point on top of the deer head.

Well, so far no one can come up with the answer as to why hunting industry are producing deer if its about "reduction" :?:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 10:41 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Grizzly Bear wrote:
Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. The subject of deer population management, particularly white-tails, is a complex, not simplistic, subject. It is covered constantly in papers published in professional wildlife management journals. There is no one single cause, and no one single solution, to the problem that some ( not all, I might add ) deer populations are too large. Causes for increased number of deer include the following:

- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies.

- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source.

- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting

- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly.

- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the fact that these drugs do not last a long time. One dose typically lasts one year, then the population has to be re-treated. Third, unless a particular deer population is isolated from other populations, it is difficult to treat enough does to achieve a net population decline, as new, untreated does can enter the population from other areas. Fourth, contraception does not produce an immediate decline in population, unlike hunting or other lethal control methods which produce immediate mortality in the population. It would take several years to notice a statistically significant decline in a contraception treated deer population if there is a lack of predators and/or it is not combined with a lethal form of population control. Fifth, is the possible ecological effects of using this, especially large-scale. We still do not fully understand the possible long-term implications for other wildlife by introducing these drugs into the food chain. And once the proverbial genie is let out of the proverbial bottle, it cannot be put back in. Deer contraception is simply a management tool available to biologists. It can be effective in certain situations, but not all, and probably not most. To push it as some kind of cure-all solution based on a knee-jerk, emotional dislike for hunting is reckless, irresponsible, and unwise.

I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php



"Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. " GB


Hunters get insulted by something that is true, because I say you are a wildlife serial killers that is "insulting'? You kill right? Serial killing means killing more then one and its wildlife you are killing so what "ad hominem" about that when when we call you as is. Wildlife serial killers.

"- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies." GB


Are you reading what I have written? I don't think so because you know its the hunters killing deers natural predator and is encouraged.

"Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX"

Hunting is NOT "natural" and is nothing like what naturals predators do. Man is no predator in the wild they are bunch of wildlife serial killeing dingbats who enjoy killing innocent animals for sports and trophy and destroy the natural balance and creates more deer thus higher Deer Vehicel Accidents.


"- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source." GB

Must have missed the food plot parts of my comments

"- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting" GB

What happens is deer seek refuge from gunshots and terrorist in the forest and that is why you find deer where there are no hunting. Hunters created large deer herd then start killing them each season and deer do not want to stay around where there is danger.

"- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly. " GB

again you did not read my comment clearly because it even talks about doe hunting to create more male fawn birth and its been "poorly thought-out" for very long time because they are not about long term deer herd reduction is that so hard for you to understand? What part of my comments did you miss?

"- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society" GB

More reason the time has come for using IC wildlife contraception.

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the blabhallllaha..." GB

Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. You have not read a single thing I have written either that or you cannot read. Here is Jay Kirkpatrick Phd even talks about how pro-kill advocates have their own "science" and Jay kirkpatrick had 15 years in wildlife contraception and you are arguing against his knowledge.?

Here is part of what Jay says in the video

"I know that quiet a few "expert" has found their way into Pittsburg both from Agencies (hunting) and other academic institutions and primarily their message has been "this doesn't work"..umm its interersting that "expert witnesess" who paraded themselves thru Pittsburg who never themselves been involved in wildlife contraceptives projects of any scales and they have offered to you a varities of opinions and ideas, congectures and assumptions but they haven't given you any numbers, they haven't given you any datas..." Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, deer contraception expert, explains the startling successes in deer contraception, its authorization for use and availability. Dr. Kirkpatrick is the founder and Director of the Science and
Conservation Center, Montana. He has worked with
contraception on 90 species of animals, including wild horses, several species of deer, African elephants and water buffalo .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw



I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php[/quote]" GB


"biologist do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD" they really either have no idea about the disease and the danger or they do and they are downplaying because that would ruin it for the hunting industry. Here is 2 sites I had created for the subject of CWD/CJD/Mad Deer Diseases because these are all diseases caused by prions so even though the death may not be listed as "CWD" in humans it can be considered CJD or early case of Alzheimer. CWD death can mimic other disease caused by the mutant protein called prions.

"While wildlife agencies play down any danger, they also provide stark warnings not to eat animal parts considered to be at highest risk, such as the brain and nervous tissue. Many suggest that meat from an infected animal not be eaten at all.
"It's kind of a mixed message," says Jim Woodward, a Wellington, Colo., activist who opposes the state's approach. "They seem to be comfortable in making some extremely definitive statements that humans aren't going get this disease. And that's exactly what happened in England in the 1980s," in the early days of mad cow.
Some researchers share his skepticism. Working with mice, University of Colorado neurologist Patrick Bosque has detected infectious prions not only in neural tissue but in muscle, and believes CWD may be transmissible to other species, including humans. It is a view shared by many who study the disease.
"We have to be careful about concluding that it hasn't happened," says Hoover.
"Unfortunately, both the federal and state governments are badly bungling this issue and falsely reassuring people that what happened in Britain could never happen here. The Centers for Disease Control should have made all cases of human CJD reportable to monitor the true number, but in 1999 refused to do so. " "

http://www.myspace.com/maddeer1967 (that is myspace site just put my information)

Here is the youtube

http://www.youtube.com/user/MadDeerDisease

Here is an aritcle called What the government isn't telling you about mad deer disease.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/ ... index.html


Overall Mr. Grizzly you have no answered much of my questions instead it was ignored because you have repeated that has already been refuted.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 3:29 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9698
Yo, Caroline? Care to continue the discussion?

I'll restate my in-sight to one of your questions:

I think your basic premise that hunting is causing deer over-population is questionable.

Your thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 4:46 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9698
http://iowafarmbureau.wordpress.com/200 ... c-numbers/

Here's a interesting article. I'm not sure which 'side' this supports :lol: but I think it's worth including in the debate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:28 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9698
http://www.myspace.com/anti-hunting_coalition

Information is useful....I thought others might have a look at this.

(WARNING: dead and injured animals shown in link)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 7:34 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
Yo, Caroline? Care to continue the discussion?

I'll restate my in-sight to one of your questions:

I think your basic premise that hunting is causing deer over-population is questionable.

Your thoughts?



I have posted 3 replies this moring but I guess the moderator has not got to it since I have not gotten anything from her in my e-mail yet as to whether its been approved or rejected Better anyway because my answer will embarrasse the hell out of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 8:50 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9698
1) Josh isn't a her....

2) You still haven't convinced me hunters are causing deer over-population. Therefore, you question is invalid, if proof of such a condition isn't there.

Let's see some proof of this CRE, Caroline.
NON-ARA proof, note.

Example: a link to a'fact' site or study/report from a neutral source?
If this CRE effect is so well known, surely there are studies we can access regarding it? Something this deer...I mean dear to anti-hunting must have lots and lots of links to prove it's actually taking place and that in fact it has a greater effect on deer-populations then food-resources or habatate/climate changes?

Note to those on the sidelines: In all the excerts and links to hunting sites provided by Caroline; has anyone ACTUALLY READ anything mentioning CRE? The links talk of deer reproduction ....but this compensatory rebound effect is never mentioned by name.
Kinda odd, doncha think?

Do those links relate to CRE.....
Or have they been selectively edited to APPEAR to do so....rather then ACTUALLY proving CRE?

Any thoughts?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:23 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
1) Josh isn't a her....

2) You still haven't convinced me hunters are causing deer over-population. Therefore, you question is invalid, if proof of such a condition isn't there.

Let's see some proof of this CRE, Caroline.
NON-ARA proof, note.

Example: a link to a'fact' site or study/report from a neutral source?
If this CRE effect is so well known, surely there are studies we can access regarding it? Something this deer...I mean dear to anti-hunting must have lots and lots of links to prove it's actually taking place and that in fact it has a greater effect on deer-populations then food-resources or habatate/climate changes?

Note to those on the sidelines: In all the excerts and links to hunting sites provided by Caroline; has anyone ACTUALLY READ anything mentioning CRE? The links talk of deer reproduction ....but this compensatory rebound effect is never mentioned by name.
Kinda odd, doncha think?

Do those links relate to CRE.....
Or have they been selectively edited to APPEAR to do so....rather then ACTUALLY proving CRE?

Any thoughts?


Hmmm kind of "strange" that its even mentioned in Science Daily article about hunting can increase wildlife disease epidemic.

"One reason the policies failed, Choisy and Rohani said, is that they didn’t take into account an ecological principle known as compensation. When a portion of the animal population is reduced, those that survive are left with more resources such as food and shelter. As a result of the newly plentiful resources, the death rate decreases and the birth rate increases, compensating – and sometimes overcompensating – for the loss.

Killing wild animals can also increase the proportion of the population that’s susceptible to disease by removing those individuals who have contracted a virus but have developed lifelong immunity as a result of their infection."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 174141.htm

And I have already written this on one of my back post but of course you ignore it like you ignore everything else because you cannot answer any of the questions I have given you about "production" "provide" "restore" fawn crops", "fawn recruits" .

Hunters rarely mentioned the word CRE because they don't want the public to know that killing creates more deer but you can obviously see it in "deer management" comments I have given you and if you cannot see it is because you don't want to see it and you don't want to admit you have no answer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:26 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Iowanic wrote:
http://www.myspace.com/anti-hunting_coalition

Information is useful....I thought others might have a look at this.

(WARNING: dead and injured animals shown in link)


wow, that is an awesome site I wonder who put that together? =D> \:D/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 20, 2010 11:41 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 8:38 am
Posts: 16153
Location: Florida
As has been already stated....you pick bits and pieces of what is said and you also missed key words like "can".
There is nothing conclusive or absolute in that article and it is something we/they already do and something that that adjustments have already been made for.
The article is from 2006. Like I keep saying...old. This is 2010

You also missed the last paragraph completely. You know where it states it is all in the timing/seasons of when the animals are hunted/culled for the best desired results in all cases.

Try again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 21, 2010 12:01 am 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9698
You noted that, too, AL?
Note also: the study was a MATHAMATICAL study: not a actualle 'in-field' study.
Interesting, eh?

Caroline is still struggling to provide proof that hunting is the main cause of deer over-population.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 294 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group