rec.arts.sf.misc Google Group

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-04T11:14:08Z

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 23:41:29 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
Assuming the perceived dangers were real, they were, and
are, dangers of using it on a much larger scale than
individual use to protect homes and the immediate
vicinity of homes.

The Day of the Nefilim -- free download

2008-09-04T07:12:18Z

I'm making my novel "The Day of the Nefilim" available for free
download as an rtf file. This should make it easy for anyone who uses
handhelds, ebook readers, etc.
You can find out more, including see some reader reviews, at
[link]
100% free, no strings.
/dminoz

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-04T03:41:29Z

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 13:05:25 +1000, "James A. Donald"
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:t0jub493asl08pb61am2vehb4ov9ejppq0@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:
The actual dangers are irrelevant; it was banned because of
perceived dangers, for which there was at least some
evidence. You may feel that the evidence was inadequate,

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-04T03:05:25Z

--
Helen Hall
James A. Donald:
Brian Scott:
The major danger to wildlife is and was that it was
highly effective in killing insects, and for the purpose
of protecting against diseases, one wants a persistent
insecticide.
The objections you list against DDT are just objections
to the fact that it is damned good at doing what it

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-04T01:36:30Z

On Thu, 04 Sep 2008 11:27:05 +1000, "James A. Donald"
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
<news:uhcub41ojb8r7o88liu2ihu2f2bk0mvme1@4ax.com> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:
[...]
True as far as it goes, but misleadingly (and typically)
incomplete. It was restricted on the grounds that (1) there
was evidence, albeit mixed, that it was a danger to wildlife

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-04T01:27:05Z

James A. Donald
Helen Hall
It was restricted to protect the welfare of birds that
eat mosquitoes, balance of nature blah blah blah -
songbirds being more charismatic than mosquitoes.
There is an arguable case for not spraying DDT over the
general environment such as food crops and grass that
cattle eat, because it inevitably gets into people, but

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T22:32:38Z

On Wed, 3 Sep 2008 19:27:07 +0100, Helen Hall
Depends on the local. There's more deer and turkey in this area now
than forty years ago. There was pressure for the state to import both
species - the deer came from Wisconsin and had ear notches or tags -
to bolster the indigenous herds and flocks. We went from two bucks per

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T18:29:54Z

In message <nnjsb4db1gsifp911ccakmpffls0c 0u...@4ax.com>, James A. Donald
<jam...@echeque.com> writes
Erm.... I don't remember DDT being banned in order to protect mosquitos.
Helen

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T18:27:07Z

In message <tkmrb4hve2bq14hp1sceffqenil6s nn...@4ax.com>, Kevin J. Cheek
<keREM0VEvin_...@yahMUNGEoo.co m.bogus> writes
Well, now there's poaching and poaching... Acquiring a brace of the rich
landowner's grouse or catching the odd rabbit with lurchers is a
different kettle of fish to killing the few surviving members of an

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T08:56:59Z

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:50:24 +0100, Helen Hall
I don't feel threatened by hunters. I feel threatened
by those who concern themselves excessively with what
other people do. Hunters don't kill people. Busy
bodies do kill people - killed a hundred million or so
in the twentieth century.
Busybodies are still killing people - for example, I

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T03:30:37Z

There were a number of threads that devolved, so the proposal was
brought out into its own thread, titled "META: Creating a sister group"
(at
[link]
/f262332f0866617e )
Then when there was some general agreement on the concept, I started a

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T01:35:06Z

On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 23:10:59 -0400, "Brian M. Scott"
<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> wrote in
<news:1htp9w1izxdj9.zxylfgeragpt$.dlg@40tude.net> in
rec.arts.sf.misc:
[...]
Oops: that should have been 'didn't specify'.
[...]
Brian

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T00:49:52Z

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:47:05 +0100, Helen Hall
No apology on your part is necessary. But the fact is that I don't
read every single thread in most newsgroups. Whether the original
thread that brought on this decision had devolved to the eye-rolling
stage or whether I just didn't find it interesting enough to read, I

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-03T00:41:21Z

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 19:50:24 +0100, Helen Hall
Shrug. That's just my perspective. Maybe there's not such a strong
dichotomy. OTOH, I don't look for anyone to change anyone's mind.
I don't think anyone cares for poaching. Some hunters over here will
try to bend the rules, so to speak (and some fishermen, too), on

Re: Big Game Hunting on an Even Footing

2008-09-02T18:47:05Z

In message <1htp9w1izxdj9.zxylfgeragpt$.. ..@40tude.net>, Brian M. Scott
<b.sc...@csuohio.edu> writes
Yes, I apologise to Kevin for making assumptions, but like Brian, I
recognised your name as a regular and thus thought you were au fait with
the "side room for off-topic discussion" agreement.
Helen