priceless green energy

If it wasn't for those pesky regulations you wouldn't be enjoying venison or even know what it tastes like.

you are fucking clueless. the hunting public self regulated itself. your prescious wildlife cops are fucking natzis with way too much unconstitutionally granted power.
 
A century ago, commercial exploitation, unregulated hunting and poor land-use practices, including deforestation severely depressed deer populations in much of their range. For example, by about 1930, the U.S. population was thought to number about 300,000. After an outcry by hunters and other conservation ecologists, commercial exploitation of deer became illegal and conservation programs along with regulated hunting were introduced. Recent estimates put the deer population in the United States at around 30 million. Conservation practices have proved so successful that, in parts of their range, the white-tailed deer populations currently far exceed their carrying capacity and the animal may be considered a nuisance. Motor vehicle collisions with deer are a serious problem in many parts of the animal's range, especially at night and during rutting season, causing injuries and fatalities among both deer and humans. Vehicular damage can be substantial in some cases.

self regulated..lol
 
self regulated..lol

your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

you might want to re-read the third and fourth sentences to understand that HUNTERS AND CONSERVATIONISTS pushed for hunting regulations.

do you get it now or are you still ignorant?
 
Brick, why do you think cruelty to animals is a joke? That its funny animals die so you can eat them. I was beginning to think you were smarter than most, but you're worse than the sheeple. Atleast if the sheeple were shown how the animals they eat were killed they'd be disgusted. They seem to not realize that venison was walking around and was always a slab of meat wrapped in plastic on styrofoam. I teach my children all life is special and to be respected, from the insect to all human kind.
See it takes a bigger person to respect others beliefs than to mock them. As a libertarian, atheist and vegan, I think meat eaters are disgusting and make me want to vomit, liberal socialists are utter fools and believers are fodder to be taken advantage of. But that's their choice to live a misguided life in my view.
If I mocked them I'd be letting them have power over me. People all have different views and that's what makes this world such a wonderful place. Not being understanding of others views and beliefs, no matter how stupid they seem to you, is why wars happen. Because there'll always be someone who thinks you're just as stupid.

All of those people you refer to as "Meat Eaters" eat lots of vegetables too you know. Meat is a much more efficient way to get calories; animals have most of the meat. Hence we have to kill the animals to get their meat so that we may live. Humans were designed/evolved to be omnivores, that is why you have sharp edges on your teeth, to eat meat with. Your molars are flatter, to crush plant matter with. Eating meat is as natural as breathing air, it is those who refuse to eat meat that are at odds with nature. Nothing wrong with being a Vegan, but there is something wrong with calling people who eat meat as being disgusting. That isn't very understanding of other peoples views and beliefs.
 
Not just any bat. It's the Hoosier Daddy Bat, suspected by many to be a larval superhero. How ya gonna feel when the dead superheroes pile up, poleaxed by pulmonary pummeling? I would HATE to think that keeping my grow lit would ... lead to an increase in crime. cn
 
Brick, why do you think cruelty to animals is a joke?


Cruelty to animals? Where did you get that from what I wrote? Only in your own mind, that's where.



That its funny animals die so you can eat them.
I don't consider it to be tragic that I receive much of my nourishment for survival from animals.


I was beginning to think you were smarter than most, but you're worse than the sheeple. Atleast if the sheeple were shown how the animals they eat were killed they'd be disgusted.
Sing that song to Ted Nugent. He'll love it.


They seem to not realize that venison was walking around and was always a slab of meat wrapped in plastic on styrofoam.
The venison I eat is never on Styrofoam.


I teach my children all life is special and to be respected, from the insect to all human kind.
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, kumbaya
Oh Lord, kumbaya


See it takes a bigger person to respect others beliefs than to mock them.
So, you are saying that you are NOT a "bigger person" because you knock my beliefs? Cool!

No ... wait .... I think you just created a paradox ..... saying that by knocking my beliefs you are not a "bigger person" you then became a "bigger person" by admitting it making you both NOT a "bigger person" and a bigger person both at the same time.

Aren't you supposed to explode or something because of that?

As a libertarian, atheist and vegan, I think meat eaters are disgusting and make me want to vomit,
What was it that you said, that "it takes a bigger person to respect others beliefs than to mock them?" If you actually respected others beliefs then, as one of the many "meat eaters," I would not be "disgusting" to you and make you "want to vomit."

liberal socialists are utter fools and believers are fodder to be taken advantage of.
What was it that you said, that "it takes a bigger person to respect others beliefs than to mock them?"

But that's their choice to live a misguided life in my view.
Who are you to judge anyone else? You can eat all the tree bark and kelp you want to. You won't catch me telling you that you are wrong and that you disgust me and make me want to vomit ... even though your meals might make me feel that way.


If I mocked them I'd be letting them have power over me.
You don't mock them. You just say that they are "disgusting" and make you "want to vomit." Oh brother, am I glad that you are a "bigger person" and will only say that "meat eaters" are "disgusting" and make you want to "vomit" rather than mocking them!



People all have different views and that's what makes this world such a wonderful place.
But your way is the right way and "meat eaters" way is the wrong way. Or at least so you proclaim.



Not being understanding of others views and beliefs, no matter how stupid they seem to you, is why wars happen.
So ....... because you fail to understand my "views and beliefs," my eating habits ..... you are going to go to war with me?


Because there'll always be someone who thinks you're just as stupid.
I get so sick and tired of touchy feely types hypocritical preachings about how you have to accept what others believe in, while at the very same time they refuse to accept what others believe in and they tell them they are wrong about what they believe in.

If I were a baby seal and I had to pick between being clubbed to death and listening to another hypocritical sermon from some touchy feely clown I would be like, someone call J-Lo and tell her that her mittens are ready.
 
We need to get rid of the EPA

The EPA tries to do things Like Make sure my drinking water

Doesnt become Flammable
Poison the Fish I eat
And ensures that Companies dont pollute the ground and Groundwater

Becuase I want My kids to be born with Birth defects and Lung Cancer to increase
I want the rain to become acidic killing most of the Vegetation in my area
And Oil Slicks May kill wildlife
But they do keep the Mosquito Population down
 
The EPA got DDT banned world wide resulting in millions of deaths to Malaria each year.

They helped kill more than they saved I'd say.

But hey, they saved some birds!
 
The EPA got DDT banned world wide resulting in millions of deaths to Malaria each year.

They helped kill more than they saved I'd say.

But hey, they saved some birds!

The truth is the whole bird eggshell thinning due to DDT use thing was a lie, a fraud, a deception that still is believed by the sheeple today.

  1. [FONT=arial, verdana, helvetica]
    [*]DDT was alleged to have thinned bird egg shells.
    [*]
    Many experiments on caged-birds demonstrate that DDT and its metabolites (DDD and DDE) do not cause serious egg shell thinning, even at levels many hundreds of times greater than wild birds would ever accumulate.

    [Cecil, HC et al. 1971. Poultry Science 50: 656-659 (No effects of DDT or DDE, if adequate calcium is in diet); Chang, ES & ELR Stokstad. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 3-10 1975. (No effects of DDT on shells); Edwards, JG. 1971. Chem Eng News p. 6 & 59 (August 16, 1971) (Summary of egg shell- thinning and refutations presented revealing all data); Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974); Jeffries, DJ. 1969. J Wildlife Management 32: 441-456 (Shells 7 percent thicker after two years on DDT diet); Robson, WA et al. 1976. Poultry Science 55:2222- 2227; Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatchability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites); Spears, G & P. Waibel. 1972. Minn. Science 28(3):4-5; Tucker, RK & HA Haegele. 1970. Bull Environ Contam. Toxicol 5:191-194 (Neither egg weight nor shell thickness affected by 300 parts per million DDT in daily diet);Edwards, JG. 1973. Statement and affidavit, U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, 24 pages, October 24, 1973; Poult Sci 1979 Nov;58(6):1432-49 ("There was no correlation between concentrations of pesticides and egg shell thinning] .") ]​
    [*]
    Experiments associating DDT with egg shell thinning involve doses much higher than would ever be encountered in the wild.

    [J Toxicol Environ Health 1977 Nov;3(4):699-704 (50 ppm for 6 months); Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 1978;7(3):359-67 ("acute" doses); Acta Pharmacol Toxicol (Copenh) 1982 Feb;50(2):121-9 (40 mg/kg/day for 45 days); Fed Proc 1977 May;36(6):1888-93 ("In well-controlled experiments using white leghorn chickens and Japanese quail, dietary PCBs, DDT and related compounds produced no detrimental effects on eggshell quality. ... no detrimental effects on eggshell quality, egg production or hatchability were found with ... DDT up to 100 ppm)]​
    [*]
    Laboratory egg shell thinning required massive doses of DDE far in excess of anything expected in nature, and massive laboratory doses produce much less thinning than is seen in many of the thin-shelled eggs collected in the wild.

    [Hazeltine, WE. 1974. Statement and affidavit, EPA Hearings on Tussock Moth Control, Portland Oregon, p. 9 (January 14, 1974)]​
    [*]
    Years of carefully controlled feeding experiments involving levels of DDT as high as present in most wild birds resulted in no tremors, mortality, thinning of egg shells nor reproductive interference.

    [Scott, ML et al. 1975. Poultry Science 54: 350-368 (Egg production, hatch ability and shell quality depend on calcium, and are not effected by DDT and its metabolites)]​
    [*]
    Egg shell thinning is not correlated with pesticide residues.

    [Krantz WC. 1970 (No correlation between shell-thinning and pesticide residues in eggs) Pesticide Monitoring J 4(3): 136-141; Postupalsky, S. 1971. Canadian Wildlife Service manuscript, April 8, 1971 (No correlation between shell-thinning and DDE in eggs of bald eagles and cormorants); Anon. 1970. Oregon State University Health Sciences Conference, Annual report, p. 94. (Lowest DDT residues associated with thinnest shells in Cooper's hawk, sharp-shinned hawk and goshawk); Claus G and K Bolander. 1977. Ecological Sanity, David McKay Co., N.Y., p. 461. (Feeding thyreprotein causes hens to lay lighter eggs, with heavier, thicker shells)]​
    [*]
    Among brown pelican egg shells examined there was no correlation between DDT residue and shell thickness.

    [Switzer, B. 1972. Consolidated EPA hearings, Transcript pp. 8212-8336; and Hazeltine, WE. 1972. Why pelican eggshells are thin. Nature 239: 410-412]​
    [*]
    Egg shells of red-tailed hawks were reported to be six percent thicker during years of heavy DDT usage than just before DDT use began. Golden eagle egg shells were 5 percent thicker than those produced before DDT use.

    [Hickey, JJ and DW Anderson. 1968. Science 162: 271-273]​
    [/FONT]

http://junksciencearchive.com/ddtfaq.html#ref6


Bald Eagle-DDT Myth Still Flying High

Thursday, July 06, 2006
By Steven Milloy
Pennsylvania officials just announced success with their program to re-establish the state’s bald eagle population. But it’s a shame that such welcome news is being tainted by oft-repeated myths about the great bird’s near extinction.
In its July 4 article reporting that the number of bald eagle pairs in Pennsylvania had increased from 3 in 1983 to 100 for the first time in over a century, the Associated Press reached into its file of bald eagle folklore and reported, “DDT poisoned the birds, killing some adults and making the eggs of those that survived thin. The thin eggs dramatically reduced the chances of eaglets surviving to adulthood. DDT was banned in 1972. The next year, the Endangered Species Act passed and the bald eagles began their dramatic recovery.”
While the AP acknowledged the fact that bald eagle populations “were considered a nuisance and routinely shot by hunters, farmers and fishermen” – spurring a 1940 federal law protecting bald eagles – the AP underplayed the significance of hunting and human encroachment and erroneously blamed DDT for the eagles’ near demise.
As early as 1921, the journal Ecology reported that bald eagles were threatened with extinction – 22 years before DDT production even began. According to a report in the National Museum Bulletin, the bald eagle reportedly had vanished from New England by 1937 – 10 years before widespread use of the pesticide.
But by 1960 – 20 years after the Bald Eagle Protection Act and at the peak of DDT use – the Audubon Society reported counting 25 percent more eagles than in its pre-1941 census. U.S. Forest Service studies reported an increase in nesting bald eagle productivity from 51 in 1964 to 107 in 1970, according to the 1970 Annual Report on Bald Eagle Status.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service attributed bald eagle population reductions to a “widespread loss of suitable habitat,” but noted that “illegal shooting continues to be the leading cause of direct mortality in both adult and immature bald eagles,” according to a 1978 report in the Endangered Species Tech Bulletin.
A 1984 National Wildlife Federation publication listed hunting, power line electrocution, collisions in flight and poisoning from eating ducks containing lead shot as the leading causes of eagle deaths.
In addition to these reports, numerous scientific studies and experiments vindicate DDT.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists fed large doses of DDT to captive bald eagles for 112 days and concluded that “DDT residues encountered by eagles in the environment would not adversely affect eagles or their eggs,” according to a 1966 report published in the “Transcripts of 31st North America Wildlife Conference.”
The USFWS examined every bald eagle found dead in the U.S. between 1961-1977 (266 birds) and reported no adverse effects caused by DDT or its residues.
One of the most notorious DDT “factoids” is that it thinned bird egg shells. But a 1970 study published in Pesticides Monitoring Journal reported that DDT residues in bird egg shells were not correlated with thinning. Numerous other feeding studies on caged birds indicate that DDT isn’t associated with egg shell thinning.
In the few studies claiming to implicate DDT as the cause of thinning, the birds were fed diets that were either low in calcium, included other known egg shell-thinning substances, or that contained levels of DDT far in excess of levels that would be found in the environment – and even then, the massive doses produced much less thinning than what had been found in egg shells in the wild.
So what causes thin bird egg shells? The potential culprits are many. Some that have been reported in the scientific literature include: oil; lead; mercury; stress from noise, fear, excitement or disease; age; bird size (larger birds produce thicker shells); dehydration; temperature; decreased light; human and predator intrusion; restraint and nutrient deficiencies.
Most of this evidence was available to the Environmental Protection Agency administrative judge who presided over the 1971-1972 hearings about whether DDT should be banned. No doubt it’s why he ruled that, “The use of DDT under the regulations involved here does not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds or other wildlife.”
Yet it’s the myths, not the facts that endure. Why? The answer is endless repetition. The environmentalists who wanted DDT banned have constantly repeated the myths over the last 40 years, while most of DDT’s defenders lost interest after the miracle chemical was summarily banned in 1972 by EPA administrator William Ruckleshaus.
Why was banning DDT so important to environmentalists?
Charles Wurster, a senior scientist for the Environmental Defense Fund – the activist group that led the charge against DDT – told the Seattle Times (Oct. 5, 1969) that, “If the environmentalists win on DDT, they will achieve a level of authority they have never had before. In a sense, much more is at stake than DDT.”
Banning DDT wasn’t about birds. It was about power. The sooner the record on DDT is set straight, the sooner the environmentalists’ ill-gotten “authority” will be seen for what it is.

Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, an advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
 
Back
Top