Yet Another Outrageous Act From The Chief Nitwit

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html

No doubt this is just one of many more attempts to undo decades of bipartisan
pro-environment policy in the final months of this pathetic administration...

/daytripper

On Aug 12, 2:58*am, daytripper wrote:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science...red.species.ap...

No doubt this is just one of many more attempts to undo decades of bipartisan
pro-environment policy in the final months of this pathetic administration...

/daytripper

Just get Kenny boy to run him off, or call him a queer, that should
settle him.

Mike Connor

http://www.mike1.bplaced.net/Wikka/HomePage

http://bfro.netOn Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:58:36 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html

No doubt this is just one of many more attempts to undo decades of bipartisan
pro-environment policy in the final months of this pathetic administration...

/daytripper

Yeah, no doubt...

SNICKER
R

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:58:36 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html

No doubt this is just one of many more attempts to undo decades of bipartisan
pro-environment policy in the final months of this pathetic administration...

/daytripper

As I said...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...f_indignation/

Even more to come...no doubt...

/daytripper

On Sat, 16 Aug 2008 23:57:10 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 20:58:36 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science....ap/index.html

No doubt this is just one of many more attempts to undo decades of bipartisan
pro-environment policy in the final months of this pathetic administration...

/daytripper

As I said...

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ed...f_indignation/

GOOD GOD!!! SLASHING 23% OF THE HABITAT!!! THEY'LL BE GONE IN WEEKS!!!
THEY CAN'T POSSIBLY SURVIVE ON...ON...on...on...wait...how many acres
will they have left...? 1? 50? 100? 200? Well, let's
check...hmmm...around 5 million, down from about 6.5 million. Gee, 5
million acres...almost 8000 square miles...boy, these owls must build
some _big_ feathermoltin' nests...

Even more to come...no doubt...

/daytripper

Hey, now, waitasec...this might have a happy ending, if you're willing
to put your effort where your keyboard is...why don't you see if you can
get your fellow Patriots there in Mass to agree to give up the entire
state for the owls (and hey, other critters, too). By happy
coincidence, the area currently under protection almost exactly the same
size (well, to be fair, the area is just a bit larger than the state),
but since it appears the owls may get a reduction in area anyway, they
should be able to make do with it...OTOH, the protection area (or
rather, its size) has been questioned by many since its creation,
including GASP California Dems, and REGASP the proposal of a
mid-20s-percent reduction has been about the same since REREGASP
Clinton was Prez...

HTH,
R

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:09:10 -0500, wrote:

why don't you see if you can
get your fellow Patriots there in Mass to agree to give up the entire
state for the owls (and hey, other critters, too).

Sounds like a wonderful idear sic, Richard. Afterall, Mass
residents, especially in the wealthy (read "liberal*) towns of
Lincoln, Weston, Sudbury, and Wayland voted to outlaw all trapping of
animals, and won't allow hunting of deer.

So now, the poor little Puh Puh Puppies of said towns are being
eaten, EATEN, by coyotes, Buffie's little kitty cats are nowhere to be
found, beaver are damming little streams causing minor floods, deer
are eating cultivated shrubs, and rabid racoons and fox are quite
common.

Hell, send them there owls. We gots lots of places for them and they
would make feathered fine fare for our coyotes (saw two on the hill
behind the house last week. With no enemy, they are thriving!)

Dave

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 11:51:10 -0400, Dave LaCourse
wrote:

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 09:09:10 -0500, wrote:

why don't you see if you can
get your fellow Patriots there in Mass to agree to give up the entire
state for the owls (and hey, other critters, too).

Sounds like a wonderful idear sic, Richard. Afterall, Mass
residents, especially in the wealthy (read "liberal*) towns of
Lincoln, Weston, Sudbury, and Wayland voted to outlaw all trapping of
animals, and won't allow hunting of deer.

This, IMO, isn't the same thing. The premise that the population of
spotted owls is lower than it once was is a purely objective one. And a
complete clear-cutting of every tree from Arctic Circle to the tip of
the Baja would not be good at all. OTOH, the suggestion that cutting
but a single tree will result in the complete loss of all life is
equally ridiculous. So, somewhere in between is the reasonable amount
of cutting that should be allowed and the amount at which the **** hits
the fan. Apparently, the low-20-something percent is a defensible
number and one suggested about from the literal day Clinton took office.

But the laws of which you speak, generally, are done more as "feelgood
legislation" in no way related to anything objective, such as deer or
coyote being "endangered species." IOW, these laws are there more for
the people than the animals, although laws preventing shooting (and by
extension, hunting) in populated areas are in the interest of public
safety. If spotted owls are an otherwise-viable species that man's
actions are endangering AND man can reasonably alter his actions to
eliminate or reduce that endangering, then, IMO, it is man's duty to do
so. OTOH, given that the owls have some 30 million acres of de facto
protected habitat (incl. the aforementioned specific 6.5 million acres),
I think it's reasonable to at least suggest that 1.5 million of it might
be better used for man's needs.

So now, the poor little Puh Puh Puppies of said towns are being
eaten, EATEN, by coyotes, Buffie's little kitty cats are nowhere to be
found, beaver are damming little streams causing minor floods, deer
are eating cultivated shrubs, and rabid racoons and fox are quite
common.

I don't know the specific communities of which you speak, but I'd offer
that the puppies and kitties and cultivated shrubs are what is being
introduced. Prior to that introduction, _VERY_ few cared what the deer,
coyote, beavers, raccoons, foxes, etc. got up to, and so, nature
balanced it all out.

Hell, send them there owls. We gots lots of places for them and they
would make feathered fine fare for our coyotes (saw two on the hill
behind the house last week. With no enemy, they are thriving!)

A 22LR HP in an accurate rifle and a baby bottle nipple can be used
rather effectively to solve a coyote problem in an area where common
sense, both community-wise and, um, residentially-specific, is in short
supply.

HTH,
R

Dave

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 14:36:21 -0500, wrote:

I don't know the specific communities of which you speak, but I'd offer
that the puppies and kitties and cultivated shrubs are what is being
introduced.

No, they were there for many years *without* coyotes. When coyotes
finally made it to NE, they were trapped and hunted, and were not a
problem. About 10 years ago, the citizens of The Peoples Republic
decided that trapping the poor coyotes, or worse yet, KILLING them
with shotguns, was inhumane.

Well, the natural thing happened. Without a natural enemy they
multiplied and multiplied and so did the deer, to the point that they
are now a giant nuisance. I have seen three fox in the past two
months that appeared to be rabid - out during the daytime, confused
(walked into several cars and snapped at them), very sick looking.
Before the libs voted in the non-trapping resolution, there were few,
if any, problems with animals in my area.

Capture the f&^@&# owls and ship 'em to Mass. The libs will take care
of them, probably even wiping their ass when they crap all over the
place like the Canada Geese now do.

Dave

On Aug 17, 3:09*pm, Dave LaCourse wrote:


Id use the term "ignorant" rather than "libs."
While I would concede a weak association, anthropomorphizing animals
and misplaced reaction to difference seems less something closely
associated with primitive left/right ideology, than my casual
association with horse people and dog people supports. And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.

Dave
Ideology is Un-American, ask General Washington

wrote:

... And on the
human side, that insane nanny bit the Texans did, taking away hundreds
of children from their polygamous parents was nothing that could be
laid at the feet of "libs," unless all the morally presumptuous
wingnut Baptists in Texas have gone thru some makeover that hasn't
made the Seattle papers yet.

Your years at BYU have endowed you with a horrific blind spot
vis a vis some of the most disgusting cultists in America. If
the polygamous cultists aren't going to protect their 14 year-old
girls from ritual rape then who will ? Protecting children isn't
morally presumptuous or the sole province of wingnut Baptists it
is the responsibility of the state.

--
Ken Fortenberry