hawk vs dog
starz...@webtv.net
http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/ap/dec99/ap-drop-the-chihua122299.asp
Paul
Period.
It reminds me of the guy who shot a wolf in Maine a few years back, an
didn't even get a slap on the wrist for it.
As a society we are hypocrites if we continue to make laws to protect
our animal friends, but allow people to break those laws.
Suzie-Q
True, but I would probably have done the same thing. I have a mini-
dachshund that I love very much. If she were in danger I wouldn't
hesitate to help her. If I had to pay a fine for bashing a hawk, so
be it. I love birds. I understand and support the migratory bird laws.
I understand hawks attacking and eating small animals. But I don't
want one carrying off a beloved pet.
8^)~~~~ Sue
~~~~~~~
"I reserve the absolute right to be smarter
today than I was yesterday." -Adlai Stevenson
**************************************************************
ICQ me at 44667939 (http://www.icq.com/)
Voice mail: 1-888-830-5748 ext. 9465 (http://mytalk.com)
The (un)Official Dave Barry Website: http://dave-barry.com/
Visit me at http://eckhardt.net/suzanne/
Fayetteville, NC - http://fayettevillecommunity.com/
**************************************************************
Ron Hardin
> True, but I would probably have done the same thing. I have a mini-
> dachshund that I love very much. If she were in danger I wouldn't
> hesitate to help her. If I had to pay a fine for bashing a hawk, so
> be it. I love birds. I understand and support the migratory bird laws.
> I understand hawks attacking and eating small animals. But I don't
> want one carrying off a beloved pet.
It shows it's a stupid law; and in fact they took a hit in the news
when the ``reprimand'' was reported. The idea was it was another amusing
bit of environmental insanity in the news.
--
Ron Hardin
rhha...@mindspring.com
On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.
starz...@webtv.net
Paul
Well, I doubt that a hawk would attack in that situation. But just for
argument's sake, then a person should protect the child, of course.
The pet should be protected as well.
My point should have been that the hawk should have suffered as little
as possible in the attack. It seemed that excessive force was used.
I stopped a coworker in the field once from going into an area, where we
knew that a Goshawk would attack us, from bringing a large stick for
defense. When the person asked if the hawk's safety was more of an issue
than a human's, I pointed out that it wasn't, BUT, I was not about to
let a human hurt a magnificent bird that was being territorial, just
because we had to check a mist net.
We were imposing upon it, and I think that some perspective in the hawk
vs dog case needs to be imposed: you can't hold it against the hawk that
the dog seemed to be an easy prey. Protect the dog, but c'mon, it wasn't
a Grizzly or some other large predator.
Again, it just seemed to me to be excessive.
Paul
Marcus
I have been in a somewhat similar situation, and let me tell you that (a) it
is terrifying and (b) moral certainties tend to dissolve.
I was walking with my 20-pound Lhasa Apso in the woodlot (i.e., forest)
where I bird one day last summer.
This was during a severe drought that had started in April, and that had a
devastating effect on the wildlife in the area. As we left the woods and
entered the "landing," or open space, where I had left my truck, all of a
sudden overhead appeared one of the largest Redtails -- doubtless a
female -- I have ever seen, along with a smaller Redtail that I believe was
her fledgling. (I had seen them together before).
Now. Bear in mind that there were indications that the coyotes were dying
from lack of food, that the deer I was seeing were so thin that their hip
bones were sticking out, and that many songbirds were leaving the area
prematurely. It was a desperate, life-threatening time for these wild
creatures!
As my dog and I entered this clearing, with perhaps a hundred and fifty feet
between us an my truck, the big Redtail descended to no more than 100 feet
above us, and hovered. In other words, she was definitely considering my
dog as dinner.
I tried to hustle my dog to the safety of the truck while protecting him
with my own body. I was also shouting at the hawk and flailing my arms to
confuse and, hopefully, discourage her. But instead, she continued to
hover. The thought crossed my mind: "My god, am I going to have to shoot
this hawk?" [My heart is racing as I remember this moment.]
After what seemed like an eternity, I was able to get my dog into the safety
of the truck. The Redtail and her fledgling then soared off, still hungry,
to hunt elsewhere.
The woods, and wildlife, are my passion. I spend a great deal of time alone
there, communing, observing, marveling. I know that Nature is amoral, not
benign, and I know that there are dangers in the woods -- one of them here
being endemic rabies. For this reason, I always carry a .38. I have never
had to use my gun, and hope I never have to.
But at that moment of shepherding my dog across that open expanse, with the
hawk threatening from the sky overhead, I came terrifyingly close to having
to make a fateful choice.
WARNING: This was a deeply personal experience that I am sharing. I
suggest that anyone with a facile or unintelligent response keep it to
him/herself.
Marcus in Vermont
Eric DeFonso
>
>I was walking with my 20-pound Lhasa Apso in the woodlot (i.e., forest)
>where I bird one day last summer.
>This was during a severe drought that had started in April, and that had a
>devastating effect on the wildlife in the area. As we left the woods and
>entered the "landing," or open space, where I had left my truck, all of a
>sudden overhead appeared one of the largest Redtails -- doubtless a
>female -- I have ever seen, along with a smaller Redtail that I believe was
>her fledgling. (I had seen them together before).
>
>Now. Bear in mind that there were indications that the coyotes were dying
>from lack of food, that the deer I was seeing were so thin that their hip
>bones were sticking out, and that many songbirds were leaving the area
>prematurely. It was a desperate, life-threatening time for these wild
>creatures!
>
>As my dog and I entered this clearing, with perhaps a hundred and fifty feet
>between us an my truck, the big Redtail descended to no more than 100 feet
>above us, and hovered. In other words, she was definitely considering my
>dog as dinner.
>
>I tried to hustle my dog to the safety of the truck while protecting him
>with my own body. I was also shouting at the hawk and flailing my arms to
>confuse and, hopefully, discourage her. But instead, she continued to
>hover. The thought crossed my mind: "My god, am I going to have to shoot
>this hawk?"
To keep it from attacking you? Certainly, I can understand that; I'd think
you to be justified in thinking so.
I do hope, however, in the future, you will reconsider walking your dog in
that forest during lean times, which to the coyotes and hawks is like
parading a delicious meal in front of them.
Eric D
j...@neosoftnospam.com
rabid birdwatcher - also fisherman and hunter.
point 2 -- I also love my pets and would defend them.
point 3 -- the woman was justified to defend her beloved pet. I would
have done whatever was necessary to defend my pet - read that for what
it means - from the hawk.
point 4 -- people killing protected species under other circumstances
should be prosecuted.
point 5 -- yes I am talking out of both sides of my mouth. Get over
it.
John J. McGeough
remove nospam from address to reply
Rich Peet
starting to happen?
I worry more about our MN wolf population as it gets to a stable and
starving population. I know that there will be a big uproar when there is
the first human kill here. At least a RT only has about 5 lbs. lift
potential.
<starz...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:15466-38...@storefull-118.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
Paul
protect your pets as well.
But why the somewhat hostile nature of your posting, ie. "get over it"?
My point was that excessive force should not be used, only the amount
necessary to end the situation.
Paul
RI
Rich Peet
than you, or a mutated ugly dog.
"Missy" <miss...@nospm.mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:8zqqhf$jjAH$1...@mailcity.com...
> On Wed Dec 29 14:16:33 1999, "Rich Peet" <pe...@citilink.com> wrote:
>
> : Isn't it great that the hawks are getting so plentiful that these things
are
> : starting to happen?
> :
> : I worry more about our MN wolf population as it gets to a stable and
> : starving population. I know that there will be a big uproar when there
is
> : the first human kill here.
>
> You can assure the world that there won't be any uproar if you simply
> take off all of your clothes, smear chicken fat all over your body, and
> wander around outdoors until a wolf grabs you.
>
> Won't it be a wonderful, "conservationist feeling" when that happens?
Eric DeFonso
Get over yourself, John. Just turn yourself in to the authorities like a
conscientious citizen the next time you decide to play pet vigilante, and
you'll have no problem from me.
Eric D
Eric DeFonso
<j...@neosoftnospam.com> wrote:
>Thanks Eric, I got over myself a long time ago. What I can't get over
>are those who cannot understand that the woman defended an animal who
>has no less or more right to life than the hawk. Moreover, she did
>what any animal would do --- defend that which was hers --- just as
>the hawk would. She behaved in exactly the same way that any animal
>would in defending that which is dear. And, yes, my post did have a
>hostile tone. I intended it. My post was in response to the
>individual who wished the lady to be in jail.
Well, then why did you reply to my post, and not to that particular
individual?
I don't recall anyone advocating jail time. I do recall someone advocating
prosecution, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
> I knew full well that I would anger the thought police. So be it.
Oh please, not another self-styled "martyr-for-truth" shtick.
> Also, I abhor Rush
>Limbaugh for the most part. But, on this issue -- if he took the side
>of the lady --- he was right. I didn't hear his statement.
Who cares what he thinks? And how did he get thrown into this thread?
Eric D
LionKuntz
writes:
>: I worry more about our MN wolf population as it gets to a stable and
>: starving population. I know that there will be a big uproar when there is
>: the first human kill here.
>
>You can assure the world that there won't be any uproar if you simply
>take off all of your clothes, smear chicken fat all over your body, and
>wander around outdoors until a wolf grabs you.
>
>Won't it be a wonderful, "conservationist feeling" when that happens?
Missy, nobody is going to missy you either when you fall to some grisly
exceedingly painful death, like maybe surgeons carving up your body to try to
amputate that cancer on your heart.
No healthy wild wolf has ever verifiably and reliably been reported killing any
human being on the North American continent -- not once ever! A comoflauged
hunter drenched with deer scent was once knocked down by a wolf from behind.
When the hunter turned around the wolf fled without ever taking a bite. Another
hunter was mauled by a wolf ultimately tracked down and killed, which turned
out to be a diseased wolf. No other cases can be reliably verified. Upon
investigation every other report cannot be confirmed. "Confabulation" is the
term used by psychiatrists to describe the act of mixing fantasy with memory
and remembering events which never happened. Somewhere in your childhood you
read about little red riding hood or saw a werewolf movie and believed that
wolves attack and kill humans, yet THAT NEVER HAPPENED IN REALITY!
When you demonstrate that you know more than the scientists who designed the
BIOSPHERE II experiment (which failed completely) than I might trust you in
designing a world where wolves have no role to play. Probably I won't ever
trust you because of that ugly mean streak you just showed, but I might respect
your intelligence if you proved that you have any.
j...@neosoftnospam.com
wrote:
>aint no secret and no concern either that I tend to relate to a bird more
>than you, or a mutated ugly dog.
Rich: Now who is hostile. Your attitude is exactly that which does
great damage to conservation. You fall right into the hands of
self-appointed authorities the likes of Rush Limbaugh. You might as
well be on the other side.
John J. McGeough
>
j...@neosoftnospam.com
(Eric DeFonso) wrote:
>
>
>Get over yourself, John. Just turn yourself in to the authorities like a
>conscientious citizen the next time you decide to play pet vigilante, and
>you'll have no problem from me.
Thanks Eric, I got over myself a long time ago. What I can't get over
are those who cannot understand that the woman defended an animal who
has no less or more right to life than the hawk. Moreover, she did
what any animal would do --- defend that which was hers --- just as
the hawk would. She behaved in exactly the same way that any animal
would in defending that which is dear. And, yes, my post did have a
hostile tone. I intended it. My post was in response to the
individual who wished the lady to be in jail. I knew full well that I
would anger the thought police. So be it. Also, I abhor Rush
Limbaugh for the most part. But, on this issue -- if he took the side
of the lady --- he was right. I didn't hear his statement.
John J. McGeough
remove nospam to e-mail
>
>
>Eric D
j...@neosoftnospam.com
John
Rich Peet
sitting here as a bird on a limb.
<j...@neosoftnospam.com> wrote in message
news:CEE35FDDF7A1BB75.37AED4CB...@lp.airnews.net...
dgerse
While I don't necessarily agree or disagree, I at least have sense enough to
see both sides, and that the world is a big gray place. Just what are you
people accomplishing in these righteous attacks (other than looking like a
horse's south end)? Decisions aren't easily made in the heat of a moment
and when it involves YOU. You have your opinion and others have theirs.
Thank goodness those of you out there who force yours down our throats don't
reign supreme.
Enough with the opinion pieces. I'm fairly new to this game (although I've
lurked at places worse than this; not for long!), but it seems to me that
this has the makings of an unusually good group of people. (Thanks by the
way to all those who have kindly and respectfully responded to my posts
since I started posting here.) If this is the sort of "discussion" that
erupts let's see less posts on pets, exotics, etc. and more on birdwatching
and birdfeeding, as that's what the group is here for. And all of us should
get over our important-in-our-own-mind selves at least once a day (including
you Eric). There's my opinion, and you can be equally glad I'm not in
control.
Peace, Dan
starz...@webtv.net
no right to talk to any woman like that. plus, you give men a bad name
by being like that. take your woman-hate somewhere else. it's not
appropriate in a bird forum. the nice men in here would appreciate if
you don't give men a bad name either by being so rude. someone else
shares an intimate story and asks politely not to be stomped on so then
what does someone do? they stomp. do you not see there is something
the matter with some of you that no amount of bird watching could cure?
if you think it makes for interesting reading it doesn't so
..getting back on topic do birds carry rabies?
tim jurik
> Hi, all,
>
> I have been in a somewhat similar situation, and let me tell you that (a)
it
> is terrifying and (b) moral certainties tend to dissolve.
You are the one taking the risk and the bird should not pay for your
intrusions.
Plubius
> A baby in a carriage?
>
> Well, I doubt that a hawk would attack in that situation. But just for
> argument's sake, then a person should protect the child, of course.
>
> The pet should be protected as well.
>
> My point should have been that the hawk should have suffered as little
> as possible in the attack. It seemed that excessive force was used.
I have discovered through various trials that my neighbor's cat serves as a
good deterrent to the hunting hawk. My neighbor's cat is rather large and
extremely agile and is very cognizant of the feathered inhabitants of my
area. The cat seems to take great delight in leaping upwards at the hawk as
it swoops low to appraise it's next potential meal. This cat has even
climbed trees in an attempt to "get" the hawk....so far to no avail, but who
knows? I will keep an eye on this ufolding drama and report accordingly.
Oddly enough, this cat shows no interest in the other feathered visitors to
my yard but only seems to have a grudge toward this hawk. I think the cat is
a Republican since the hawk looks a bit like James Carville.
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
William Hull
>
> On Mon, 27 Dec 1999 16:13:14 -0500 Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> : It shows it's a stupid law; and in fact they took a hit in the news
> : when the ``reprimand'' was reported. The idea was it was another amusing
> : bit of environmental insanity in the news.
>
> just how far out of balance things have gotten.
Hah. You too can be an 'environmental wacko'. All you have to do is
care about the quality of the air, water and surroundings that you, your
family, and friends breathe, drink, and live in and you can watch all
sorts of self-proclaimed experts on everything come out of the woodwork
and tell you how stupid you are. It is really quite amusing. Who would
have thought health would be such a controversial subject.
> Rush Limbaugh is quite right
> when he takes that kind of imbecile to task on his national radio program.
>
> Thank God Rush isn't falling all over himself to be politically correct,
> as are some of the people in this newsgroup.
Too bad he isn't "falling all over himself" to be factually correct.
What a buffoon. I played a game one summer with some friends called
"Catch Rush in a Lie". You got different levels of points based upon
the category of deception. Categories went from "Bald-faced lie" to
"Subtle Omission of Key Facts" with various levels in between. If you
wish to try it yourself be careful of the scale that you use for the
points system. Scores can easily become absurd.
Bill
Rich Peet
> On 31 Dec 1999 12:01:54 -0500, William Hull <willia...@sdrc.com> wrote:
>
> : Missy wrote:
> : >
> Rush while staying on the sidelines. So far, not one of you has been
> able to stand up to his supposed "stupidity". You yourself would be
> quite politely demolished if you ever tried to go toe to toe with him.
> I dare you to call his program.
>
> : What a buffoon. I played a game one summer with some friends called
>
> Ohhh. You played a game one Summer!! Ewww, that must make you quite
> formidable, eh?
>
> I dare you to call Rush's program; then we'll see who's the real
> buffoon.
Rush forgot that "Conservation" came from the word "Conservative". Since
when did conservation become a liberal issue. The "School for Conservative
Studies" is "Capitalism Studies" and not close to Conservative.
I am a true "Conservative" that wishes "Preservation, Restoration and
Protection" of prime habitats". Rush ran out of material a long time ago
and has a goal of entertainment and nothing more. No reason to call him as
I have never heard him changed from any caller. He is who he is.
As long as the Endangered Species Act is the only tool we have for
protection of an entire system we will continue to talk about weird things
like one Spotted Owl and three Flower Loving Fly stopping the development of
millions of dollars of business. Give me any tool to protect a rare
eco-system and we can look beyond the bull. There is none.
Now all this also makes me someone very easy to take issue with and I do not
pretend to be representative of any group. So be it, let the flogging
continue.
Rich Peet
question your motives were not to the benefit of rec.birds. And I sure
would like a lesson from you on setting up a newsgroup identity as I also
see you have much to teach us all there as well.
Leon Fisk
it on the air. He isn't interested in truth/accuracy as such,
but the putting on of a commercial show that makes a good deal
of money.
If you don't fit into the "making the show entertaining area"
you will most likely never get on the "air". Oh of course you
could lie through your teeth and eventually get on, but I've
also noticed how quickly these type of calls are "cut off".
Rush caters to a select group of people, feeding them exactly
what they wish to hear. No more, no less...
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
========================
On 31 Dec 1999 18:18:21 GMT, miss...@nospm.mailcity.com
(Missy) wrote:
>much sniping<
>You know, it is revealing to listen to people like yourself whine about
>Rush while staying on the sidelines. So far, not one of you has been
>able to stand up to his supposed "stupidity". You yourself would be
>quite politely demolished if you ever tried to go toe to toe with him.
>I dare you to call his program.
>more snipping<
Gary Lantz
Missy <miss...@nospm.mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:8zqqhf$jjAL$1...@mailcity.com...
> On 31 Dec 1999 12:01:54 -0500, William Hull <willia...@sdrc.com> wrote:
>
> : Missy wrote:
> : >
> : >
> : > : It shows it's a stupid law; and in fact they took a hit in the news
> : > : when the ``reprimand'' was reported. The idea was it was another
amusing
> : > : bit of environmental insanity in the news.
> : >
> : > Only environmentalist wackos would scold someone that way, and it's a
sign of
> : > just how far out of balance things have gotten.
> :
> : Hah. You too can be an 'environmental wacko'. All you have to do is
> : care about the quality of the air, water and surroundings that you, your
> : family, and friends breathe, drink, and live in and you can watch all
>
> who studied the issues carefully, usually from a scientific viewpoint,
> and *then* worked to get changes made. Of course, they had to do
> inconvenient things like obtain a degree or two - something the wackos
> can't imagine.
>
> : sorts of self-proclaimed experts on everything come out of the woodwork
> : and tell you how stupid you are. It is really quite amusing. Who would
>
> nothing more than smug, ignorant activists (e.g., Greenpeace) too lazy
> to actually think for themselves. They just want the warm, fuzzy,
> feel-good vibes they get, and they hate for anyone to challenge what has
> become a religion to them. Unfortunately, they can do some real harm in
> their ignorant enthusiasm, as has Greenpeace when it endangered both
> human lives and natural habitats during several confrontations with the
> government of France. Eventually France was forced to sink a Greenpeace
> ship, and I think that France was more than justified.
>
> : > Rush Limbaugh is quite right
> : > when he takes that kind of imbecile to task on his national radio
program.
> : >
> : > Thank God Rush isn't falling all over himself to be politically
correct,
> : > as are some of the people in this newsgroup.
> :
> : Too bad he isn't "falling all over himself" to be factually correct.
>
> Rush while staying on the sidelines. So far, not one of you has been
> able to stand up to his supposed "stupidity". You yourself would be
> quite politely demolished if you ever tried to go toe to toe with him.
> I dare you to call his program.
>
>
> Ohhh. You played a game one Summer!! Ewww, that must make you quite
> formidable, eh?
>
> I dare you to call Rush's program; then we'll see who's the real
> buffoon.
>
The only people that listen to Dumbaugh, except to laugh at Republicans are
dittoheads/dimwits. A dittohead is either ill-informed, mis-informed or of
low IQ. All of them are loons and wingnuts. The group grows smaller. Even
most of the idiots stopped wasting their money on his Dumbaugh Letter, a
pure example of "a sucker is born every minute." His publication is 1/2 of
what it was as is his audience. Now he is listened to by the laughers at
the remaining loons and wingnuts that are in the Republican party.
Dusty Bleher
Dusty Bleher
San Jose, Ca.
<idiot rant snipped.
Dusty Bleher
news:386dfb8b...@news1.iserv.net...
> Rush's calls are all screened before they ever get to him/make
> it on the air. He isn't interested in truth/accuracy as such,
that's so far off the truth...?
Dusty Bleher
San Jose, Ca.
<snipped>
Leon Fisk
I didn't say that what he presents isn't true, but that he
isn't interested in whether it is true or not. He is interested
in getting people excited/incensed, which in turn makes him
*money*.
It's all about money, money, money for his show/business...
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI
Remove no.spam for email
========================
Eric DeFonso
dgerse <dge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I must say, there are a lot of self-styled moral police on this group.
The world certainly looks red through rose-colored lenses, doesn't it?
>Just what are you
>people accomplishing in these righteous attacks (other than looking like a
>horse's south end)?
I wish I knew which righteous attack you were talking about? It seems that
you are fantasizing me to be some kind of meddling crusader.
>and when it involves YOU. You have your opinion and others have theirs.
>Thank goodness those of you out there who force yours down our throats don't
>reign supreme.
All I'm saying is that it is not ludicrous to prosecute someone for
disobeying the law, especially as it pertains to the Federal Migratory
Bird Act. To me, you are suggesting that it should not apply when it is
inconvenient for you. Pardon me for considering that position, which you
may or may not hold, to be indefensible.
>and birdfeeding, as that's what the group is here for. And all of us should
>get over our important-in-our-own-mind selves at least once a day (including
>you Eric).
You don't get it - you are defending the very people who do believe they
are "important-in-their-own-mind selves" by thinking that the law doesn't
apply to them.
Physician, heal thyself.
Eric D
William Hull
>
> "Leon Fisk" <lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote in message
> news:386dfb8b...@news1.iserv.net...
> > Rush's calls are all screened before they ever get to him/make
> > it on the air. He isn't interested in truth/accuracy as such,
> Really? Then why don't you regale us with some examples of what he says
> that's so far off the truth...?
>
> Dusty Bleher
> San Jose, Ca.
> <snipped>
Dusty,
Here is a good start.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/limbaugh-debates-reality.html
At the bottom there are links to Limbaugh rebuttals and FAIR rebuttals
to the rebuttals.
Bill
Dusty Bleher
liberal factoids shaped to support the writers position. The date on that
website was, what--mid-1994? Here, let me return the favor and give you a
place to start:
http://www.tntech.edu/~mww/www/rush-35-truths.html.
If you figure that your "truth" comes from a congress critter or the current
pox on our white house, then there's absolutely nothing I could possibly say
to you that would ever refute such a stand...
Dusty Bleher
San Jose, Ca.
oh yeah, the obligatory bird for this NG: ~~|~~ (:-)!
"William Hull" <willia...@sdrc.com> wrote in message
news:387240E7...@sdrc.com...
dgerse
Eric DeFonso <er...@meer.REMOVETHISTOEMAILME.net> wrote in message
news:84qu8d$1q7$1...@meer.net...
>
> The world certainly looks red through rose-colored lenses, doesn't it?
>
Hm, is that why you're unable to see the shades of gray in this argument?
From your posts, it seems all you were seeing was red--way to much heat and
little light.
>
> I wish I knew which righteous attack you were talking about? It seems that
> you are fantasizing me to be some kind of meddling crusader.
>
I don't think I fantasized *your* posts which quite frankly speak for
themselves on this issue.
> All I'm saying is that it is not ludicrous to prosecute someone for
> disobeying the law, especially as it pertains to the Federal Migratory
> Bird Act. To me, you are suggesting that it should not apply when it is
> inconvenient for you. Pardon me for considering that position, which you
> may or may not hold, to be indefensible.
>
No, it isn't ludicrous. And I am a firm believer in that the law applies
equally to all, and is not to be chucked when found inconvenient. But is
that for you to decide? No? Well, me neither. But I suppose I'd protect
my pet (if I had one) from such an attack if there was one. Would such
protection be illegal? Depends on the severity of the consequences and the
actual threat involved, which would be up to the courts to decide. What
would you do? Oh well, the hawk gets fluffy, there she goes, been nice
knowing you? If you chase the hawk away, should you be prosecuted for
harrassing a migratory bird?
>
> You don't get it - you are defending the very people who do believe they
> are "important-in-their-own-mind selves" by thinking that the law doesn't
> apply to them.
>
I do get it, but you seem to be having trouble grasping an argument from
outside a position, which is firmly where I'm standing. No, I wasn't
defending anyone, other than that they should be allowed to hold their own
opinion. I didn't see anyone defending the injuring or killing of hawks,
which as you quite rightly point out, is illegal. As for that last part, I
think that's assuming too much about people you don't even know.
> Physician, heal thyself.
So be it. I'm done. Have a peaceful and happy new year.
Dan
Eric DeFonso
Dusty Bleher <du...@fsinc.com> wrote:
>Hey, Bill! Nice collection of innuendo, out-of-context sound bytes, and
>liberal factoids shaped to support the writers position. The date on that
>website was, what--mid-1994?
I guess that means Limbaugh is still as wrong now as he was then! 8^)
Out-of-context? Let's see then, what is the context for the statement,
"Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times
the amount of ozone-destroying chemicals in one eruption than all the
fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive
corporations in history."
I don't think it's unfair to say that this was intended as a
counterargument to the notion of CFC's causing ozone depletion. Either
he's plainly wrong, or he's being willfully deceptive. Nice choice, eh?
"Words mean things?" Heh. They seem to mean whatever Rush wants them to
mean.
>Here, let me return the favor and give you a place to start:
>http://www.tntech.edu/~mww/www/rush-35-truths.html.
Pretty funny stuff. Good for entertainment, I suppose, and myth
propagation.
Fortunately the man has marginalized himself to the point where he's just
an afterthought now.
ObBirds: Pillar Point Harbor near Half Moon Bay has been a great source
for new birds on my life list the past year. In the last three months, on
about 4 different visits, I've seen my first Red-Throated Loon, Oldsquaw,
Thayer's Gull, and Greater Scaup. (In fact, last Sunday there were a
couple dozen Greater Scaup in the harbor, males distinguished by their
greenish-tinged heads). I saw my first Brant, Wandering Tattler, and Ruddy
Turnstones (in full breeding plumage!) last July as well.
Eric D
Eric DeFonso
dgerse <dge...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> All I'm saying is that it is not ludicrous to prosecute someone for
>> disobeying the law, especially as it pertains to the Federal Migratory
>> Bird Act. To me, you are suggesting that it should not apply when it is
>> inconvenient for you. Pardon me for considering that position, which you
>> may or may not hold, to be indefensible.
>>
>
>No, it isn't ludicrous. And I am a firm believer in that the law applies
>equally to all, and is not to be chucked when found inconvenient. But is
>that for you to decide? No? Well, me neither. But I suppose I'd protect
>my pet (if I had one) from such an attack if there was one. Would such
>protection be illegal? Depends on the severity of the consequences and the
>actual threat involved, which would be up to the courts to decide. What
>would you do? Oh well, the hawk gets fluffy, there she goes, been nice
>knowing you? If you chase the hawk away, should you be prosecuted for
>harrassing a migratory bird?
It depends on the facts of the case.
I am confident that a principled judge and/or jury could apply the law
fairly and either exonerate or convict a person for violating the letter
and spirit of the law, in a court. My concern is that some seem to feel
that simply because the woman in question was acting on behalf of a pet,
that anything she did to serve that end automatically frees her from the
consequences of her actions.
Precedent is simply too important a thing to mess with when in comes to
environmental law and wildlife protection. I'd simply like to see the
facts of the case brought to bear, and decision made on them by a fair an
impartial court. If the facts demand that the woman acted only to the
extent to save her dog's life, then I think she should be acquitted. I do
not believe it is out of bounds to ask for prosecution in a case like
this. Perhaps I am overly defensive of wildlife, but I feel they have been
given enough short shrift in our society and legal system that almost any
case of this sort deserves closer examination.
>So be it. I'm done. Have a peaceful and happy new year.
Thank you, you too.
Eric D
Dusty Bleher
> I guess that means Limbaugh is still as wrong now as he was then! 8^)
> Out-of-context? Let's see then, what is the context for the statement,
> "Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times
> the amount of ozone-destroying chemicals in one eruption than all the
> fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive
> corporations in history."
A thousand times, 40 times, a million times? What's the diff? It spews, we
spew, everthing things spews into the air. And all of it is eventually
managed by the ecosystem.
I guess his statement is further off then our buddy "algore". You know him.
He's the guy that invented the internet...(:-}!
>
> I don't think it's unfair to say that this was intended as a
> counterargument to the notion of CFC's causing ozone depletion. Either
> he's plainly wrong, or he's being willfully deceptive. Nice choice, eh?
So we're quibbling over a matter of degree? One expert says one way, one
expert another. Either one or both are willfully deceptive, or just plain
wrong. The truth of the matter is, *I* invented the internet! (;-)
>
> "Words mean things?" Heh. They seem to mean whatever Rush wants them to
> mean.
Kinda like your prez. To him the word, "is", seems to have multiple and
grossly contradictory meanings... So I guess you're right, words do often
mean what the speaker wants them to mean...
<snipped>
> Fortunately the man has marginalized himself to the point where he's just
> an afterthought now.
Um, lotsa folks would like to think it that way... I say, "Let 'em!"
Anybody that thinks the stuff our tax paid masters are into is for their
good, deserve to keep their heads where the sun-don't-shine...
>
> ObBirds: Pillar Point Harbor near Half Moon Bay has been a great source
> for new birds on my life list the past year. In the last three months, on
> about 4 different visits, I've seen my first Red-Throated Loon, Oldsquaw,
> Thayer's Gull, and Greater Scaup. (In fact, last Sunday there were a
> couple dozen Greater Scaup in the harbor, males distinguished by their
> greenish-tinged heads). I saw my first Brant, Wandering Tattler, and Ruddy
> Turnstones (in full breeding plumage!) last July as well.
Hey Eric, all this other nonsense aside, just where around Pillar Point did
you see all these birds? I usually have to go down to Elkhorn Slough to see
birds of that stripe. Someplace closer would be nice. But I've always
found PP somewhat barren...
Best regards,
Eric DeFonso
Dusty Bleher <du...@fsinc.com> wrote:
><snipped>
>
>> Out-of-context? Let's see then, what is the context for the statement,
>> "Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines spewed forth more than a thousand times
>> the amount of ozone-destroying chemicals in one eruption than all the
>> fluorocarbons manufactured by wicked, diabolical and insensitive
>> corporations in history."
>A thousand times, 40 times, a million times? What's the diff?
The pertinent point here is that what Pinatubo released had no bearing on
the role CFC's have played in ozone depletion. Limbaugh's "argument" is
pure red herring, nothing more.
Limbaugh may be entertaining, but he certainly was way off when it comes
to stratospheric chemistry. (He still is, assuming he hasn't retracted his
earlier mistakes.)
>It spews, we spew, everthing things spews into the air. And all of it is
>eventually managed by the ecosystem.
For one, volcanoes do not spew chlorofluorocarbons. That is a major
difference. Released CFC's like those from leaky air conditioners, fire
extinguishers, and cans of hair spray are (and were) by far the most
productive, efficient and effective way of transporting chlorine compounds
into the stratosphere. The notable Mexican volcano El Chichon in 1982
belched out only 0.04 Mt of chlorine compounds, 25 times less than the
amount carried in manmade CFC compounds in a year at that time. Pinatubo
produced even less - what it did produce massive quantities of, however,
and inject into the stratosphere was sulfur dioxide, not HCl.
Also, I was not talking about ecosystems per se; I was talking about
stratospheric ozone. So was Limbaugh, supposedly.
>
>I guess his statement is further off then our buddy "algore". You know him.
>He's the guy that invented the internet...(:-}!
>
>>
>> I don't think it's unfair to say that this was intended as a
>> counterargument to the notion of CFC's causing ozone depletion. Either
>> he 's plainly wrong, or he's being willfully deceptive. Nice choice,
>> eh?
>So we're quibbling over a matter of degree?
No, we're talking about chemical and physical processes, and Limbaugh's
glaring misunderstanding of them. Explosive volcanoes (certainly not
including the one suggested by Rogelio Maduro and parroted by Rush, Mt.
Erebus in Antarctica) can play a role in stratospheric ozone depletion by
injecting aerosols, but not unless there are already substantial amounts
of extant chlorine and/or bromine radicals. Those radicals have been shown
in theory, lab experiment, and atmospheric measurement to have come
overwhelmingly from anthropogenic compounds. Limbaugh has no science to
stand on here, assuming he still believes what he wrote and said in the
early 90's.
>One expert says one way, one expert another.
Uh, actually most experts in stratospheric chemistry are in pretty close
agreement about this issue. The physical evidence (exemplified by *direct*
atmospheric measurement) is overwhelming, and not really subject to any
real debate anymore. Ozone depletion denialists are burying their heads in
the sand...
>>
>> "Words mean things?" Heh. They seem to mean whatever Rush wants them to
>> mean.
>Kinda like your prez.
I'm sorry, I assumed you were an American citizen. My mistake.
>To him the word, "is", seems to have multiple and
>grossly contradictory meanings... So I guess you're right, words do often
>mean what the speaker wants them to mean...
Indeed. That's one reason I like to be a bit verbose. It's a little
tedious, especially for those reading my words or listening to me, but I
feel that it allows me to be clearer, and to limit the amount of
supposition required in order to grasp my meaning.
It's also why, when it comes to anything remotely resembling
science, I like to see things quantified, you know, numbers. That allows
me to know fairly quickly if someone has any idea what they're talking
about. Numbers, far more than words, "mean things".
>> ObBirds: Pillar Point Harbor near Half Moon Bay has been a great source
>> for new birds on my life list the past year. In the last three months, on
>> about 4 different visits, I've seen my first Red-Throated Loon, Oldsquaw,
>> Thayer's Gull, and Greater Scaup. (In fact, last Sunday there were a
>> couple dozen Greater Scaup in the harbor, males distinguished by their
>> greenish-tinged heads). I saw my first Brant, Wandering Tattler, and Ruddy
>> Turnstones (in full breeding plumage!) last July as well.
>Hey Eric, all this other nonsense aside, just where around Pillar Point did
>you see all these birds? I usually have to go down to Elkhorn Slough to see
>birds of that stripe. Someplace closer would be nice. But I've always
>found PP somewhat barren...
I just go to the parking area just west of the salt marsh near Pillar
Point itself. You know, exit Highway 1 at Princeton, needle your way
past the restaurants and the warehouse area, and drive toward the Air
Force radio installation. I've seen all my new birds in the harbor, either
floating near the beaches or standing around on the rocks or the jetties
near the south-facing beach that is open to the sea.
To be honest, I feel a little lucky this past year. I can't say
that there are often rare or unusual birds there, but at least when I've
gone lately I've been impressed by at least one type of bird that's shown
up. Then again, I am probably easier to impress than perhaps other more
jaded San Mateo County birders who've already seen many of these nifty
ducks or whatever. (I forgot to mention the pair of Bonaparte's Gulls I
saw a few weeks ago!)
We may not see eye to eye, Dusty, but at least we like our birds.
Eric D
Dusty Bleher
<snipped>
> >> Out-of-context? Let's see then, what is the context for the statement,
directed me to. While I can't and don't listen to him all that much, I did
listen to some of the shows from which some of the quotes were cut. And
most of the ones I recognized were carefully out of context.
Of course, he's a showman. And along with the hype and snipe attacks, he
also presents a fair amount of truthful points of view. The point he was
making was that too often some of the lesser scientific pundits with axes to
grind--or funds to raise--make more of things then they are. A few years
back it was the coming ice age, that had 'em all worried. Now it's the BS
of global warming. You know, "Warning! Warning! Scream and shout! We
need more money and a new agency to combat this (translation: dip into my
pocket and shrink my rights).
IIRC; when he make his Pinatubo reference, he was pointing out that the
might and weight of the Federal government (in the form of the <unelected>
EPA) came down on some little businessman (a baker, I think) for emissions
from his bakery or something. I'd say he was making as outrageous an
assertion as the gloom-n-doomers are always making in the other direction.
<snipped>
> >Kinda like your prez.
>
> I'm sorry, I assumed you were an American citizen. My mistake.
Yes, it was your mistake. An easy one to make when you take statements out
of context. I am an America citizen. Unlike our feckless leader: I served
my country proudly. And more unlike him, I own my own business. I bought
my own house. I employ people--and I don't diddle any of them in my office.
As opposed to living at the government trough, I and my employees work for a
living as individual citizens and pay taxes. Just for the record; I wasn't
born into my American citizenship. While he was proudly demonstrating
against this country and for his komrads, my family braved dogs and volleys
of gunfire to escape from the very country and lifestyle that he so much
supports and wants for you. Go figure!
<snipped>
> science, I like to see things quantified, you know, numbers. That allows
> me to know fairly quickly if someone has any idea what they're talking
> about. Numbers, far more than words, "mean things".
I couldn't agree more! It's always those darn numbers, isn't it? I mean
how can a conservative champion bettering medicare services, while the
liberal left brays that they instead intend to throw old people out onto the
street. I sure wish they'd deal in numbers...don't you?
<snipped>
> I just go to the parking area just west of the salt marsh near Pillar
> Point itself. You know, exit Highway 1 at Princeton, needle your way
> past the restaurants and the warehouse area, and drive toward the Air
> Force radio installation. I've seen all my new birds in the harbor, either
> floating near the beaches or standing around on the rocks or the jetties
> near the south-facing beach that is open to the sea.
But that area is mostly rock and sand and buildings, isn't it? I guess that
I'm just surprized that you found the birds you listed there. Looks like
I'll have to get over there and check it out again. I sure did miss all
those birds you saw. Thanks for the tip, Eric. BTW; how is the marsh area
by PP? It too has been sort of dull blah when I've been there. Maybe I
just need to time things better...?
<snipped>
> We may not see eye to eye, Dusty, but at least we like our birds.
Oh yeah! Right on both counts. Say, did you participate in the CBC this
year? Anything worth mentioning? Got any plans on going places further
afield this year? Want some company? I'd guess that our driving time
discussion could be very entertaining...(:-)!