March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
9 members (NCTarheel, bigblock, docbill, battle, eightbore, Perry M. Kissam), 859 guests, and 6 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,018
Members14,391
Most Online1,258
Mar 29th, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 16 17
old colonel #513188 05/06/18 01:47 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Originally Posted By: old colonel
Originally Posted By: old colonel


Returning to the original article noted rather than going down anecdotal rat holes.

Do you believe this new one study by statistical analysis is correct that pesticides are the leading cause of grassland bird decline?


Yeah, I think it could be. More research is needed though. Banning pesticides means messing with the world food supply. Serious implications. I'm not willing to be stampeded by tree-hugger notions of what's best for us all...Geo

Geo. Newbern #513189 05/06/18 02:11 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
No! I do not, and not because I support the use of pesticides at any cost. I do not. And, no one would be more pleased than me to see scientists and layman work together to find the answer to, and to correct, the quail decline. The top biologists and pathologists in research are collaborating as never before to find the answers to the bobwithe quail decline. If the answer had been as simple as "pesticides", they would have been able to identify it decades ago, when there were much more toxic insecticides in use than there are today. But, truth is they haven't. "Pesticides" is an easy scapegoat for the armchair expert to latch onto. Not so easy to look closer to home and see all the habitat loss, that stems from our demanding cheap food, convenience stores on every corner and pavement on every thoroughfare, then new trails for 4 wheelers, UTVs, off road 4WDs, etc.

There are unexplained resurgences in populations of other species, many of them songbirds, which, according to all the "experts" rise and fall according to the same sets of circumstances as quail. Guess they were wrong on that one, too,

No ........... just because a new "study" is released, of questionable heritage, does not mean I will drink the Kool-aid. Show me confirmation.

One last thought to, as Bro. Don says, ruminate upon........... if "pesticides" are a major cause of bobwhite quail's decline, why did they go away in places where no "pesticides" we're used for agriculture, wilderness areas hundreds of miles from the most limited uses of such?

SRH

Last edited by Stan; 05/06/18 02:21 PM. Reason: so.

May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513192 05/06/18 04:41 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
From practical point of view I support use of all pesticides and herbicides safe to humans when used correctly. In EU and England they raise game birds and have entire industry dedicated to organized hunting (estate owners, agents, keepers, beaters,.....) providing them with extra jobs and income. Upland hunting is expensive sport and costs will only go up if one wants to enjoy good field shooting.

keith #513193 05/06/18 04:49 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: keith
Aw geez, here we go again... except this time we have LGF posting links to peregrine fund junk science instead of GrouseGuy Ben Deeble, and BrentD. And naturally, Larry is back with his usual anti-lead ammo diatribe. In last year's "Lead and Condors Deaths" thread, when Larry and Brent were shown dramatic differences in what blood lead levels constituted a lethal dose in eagles, they both got all pissed off at us instead of acknowledging that some or all of these agenda driven studies must be bogus.

Hey, do all of these brilliant ecologists remember how Rachel Carson, the author of "Silent Spring", said that robins were on the verge of extinction at the same time she was pushing her anti-DDT propaganda?


I have no objections to lead shot being used for upland game hunting. My double is capable of handling upland steel shot cartridges of appropriate length and has very good resale value anywhere upland guns are used. If lead shot is banned for hunting use the value of your gun collection is going to fall. You can "come out of your closet" now and stop bitching and moaning about dangers to the Second Amendment Rights. If you spend any time reading posts on TheLiberalGunClub it should be obvious that the Second Amendment isn't going away any time soon. I would not post there if I were you. Remember they refer to people like you one there as "Conservative Stormtroopers" or worse.

LGF #513210 05/06/18 08:48 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 332
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,081
Likes: 332
Originally Posted By: LGF
- before it was banned a few years ago, Furadan granules were thought to directly kill up to 100 million birds annually in Canada alone.


100 million? Come on...
JR


Be strong, be of good courage.
God bless America, long live the Republic.
Geo. Newbern #513212 05/06/18 09:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1129
I love that wordage ......."thought". The obvious question is, thought by whom? That really does make as difference, as much as the libs would hate to admit it.

Furadan was a corn insecticide applied at planting 'in furrow". What that means is that it was off label, or illegal, to apply it on top of the ground where birds could pick it up. It would not even do the intended job, which was to control wireworms and seed maggots, if it was not applied right in the underground furrow with the seed, which was covered with 1 1/2"-2" of soil. The danger to birds with it was that sometimes a few granules would trickle out the planter as you turned around on the ends of the fields. Good farmers ran a harrow over the ends after planting to cover those granules and prevent birds ingesting them.

100 million is quite a stretch, IMO. But then again it was "thought".

whistle

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513215 05/06/18 10:48 PM
Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 49
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Oct 2014
Posts: 49
If pesticides would've been called "plant prtectants" we'd all be better off right now. When insecticides, fungicides, herbicides, nematicides, etc. are applied within labeled regulations, risks to other species are extremely low.

I'm a golf course superintendent by trade, and can say with certainty that those who rely on the land for a living tend to be the best stewards of it. Stan's post above illustrates this point. We are living in a much different time then we were even 10-20 years ago. Licensed applicators are more educated and reponsible than ever before. The average homeowner, not so much...

I read labels religiously, and would never knowingly apply a product that would have a negative impact on anything other than the target pest. There are too many chemistries available today to take this risk.

There is too much misinformation about pesticides from people who know nothing about how they are applied. Many of these evil products are purchased over the counter every day in common household products without a second thought.

Geo. Newbern #513217 05/07/18 07:11 AM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 105
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,978
Likes: 105
Although they dont present the scientific data in this write up, they do mention the data is from the 80s and 90s and they mention organophosphates were still in vogue which would pretty much kill all pests including the human ones. Id like to see the actual data.


Socialism is almost the worst.
craigd #513218 05/07/18 07:24 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
LGF, good points--but you likely won't convince Craig....

....You hit the nail on the head when you said there's unanimity when it comes to the dangers posed by lead shot.

So the question really isn't whether lead shot can endanger wildlife. Rather, it's whether we've basically solved the lead shot problem with the steps we've already taken....

Thanks for the lecture Larry. You're wrong, yes I am convincible. We as a nation are much better off with reductions in various toxins. Lead is an excellent example. Take for instance LGF's link, the very fist reference study opens by saying 'lead poisoning in humans is very well known, our understanding about it in wildlife is at a mid 1800's level'.

I've only ever questioned your foregone conclusions. What's the difference between a foregone conclusioner and a denier? Maybe, all it comes to is that the foregone conclusioner has political decision making clout and the denier gets stuck with the demeaning label? What makes you think that you can take a foregone conclusion to the point that you want to and then hit the brakes?


Which "foregone conclusions" would those be, Craig? I've given you multiple opportunities to come up with even one credible "lead shot threat denier" with credentials somewhat better than yours or Keith's. You know, solid scientific credentials--like some global warming deniers. And one reason that the understanding of the lead poisoning threat isn't at anywhere near the same level in wildlife that it is in humans: We get all excited if we find humans sick or dying from something. We only get excited about wildlife when we a)Really care about the species in question. (For example, if scavengers are ingesting lead from shot but unrecovered wildlife, does anyone really care? Unless, that is, they're eagles!) And b)We have to be aware of what's happening to wildlife. Dead deer lying around are a good bit more obvious than dead quail or doves or woodcock. The only way we know those species are in trouble is if we observe a significant decline in numbers. At which point wildlife biologists do their best to determine what's going on. But birds tend to die in secret, and we don't find a very high percentage of the victims' corpses to do autopsies. Unlike humans.

L. Brown #513223 05/07/18 09:23 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,445
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
LGF, good points--but you likely won't convince Craig....

....You hit the nail on the head when you said there's unanimity when it comes to the dangers posed by lead shot.

So the question really isn't whether lead shot can endanger wildlife. Rather, it's whether we've basically solved the lead shot problem with the steps we've already taken....

....Larry. You're wrong, yes I am convincible....

....Take for instance LGF's link, the very fist reference study opens by saying 'lead poisoning in humans is very well known, our understanding about it in wildlife is at a mid 1800's level'.

I've only ever questioned your foregone conclusions. What's the difference between a foregone conclusioner and a denier?....

....What makes you think that you can take a foregone conclusion to the point that you want to and then hit the brakes?


Which "foregone conclusions" would those be, Craig?....

....And one reason that the understanding of the lead poisoning threat isn't at anywhere near the same level in wildlife that it is in humans: We get all excited if we find humans sick or dying from something. We only get excited about wildlife when we a)Really care about the species in question. (For example, if scavengers are ingesting lead from shot but unrecovered wildlife, does anyone really care? Unless, that is, they're eagles!) And b)We have to be aware of what's happening to wildlife. Dead deer lying around are a good bit more obvious than dead quail or doves or woodcock. The only way we know those species are in trouble is if we observe a significant decline in numbers. At which point wildlife biologists do their best to determine what's going on. But birds tend to die in secret, and we don't find a very high percentage of the victims' corpses to do autopsies. Unlike humans.

Isn't everything that follows a foregone conclusion, or pure assumptions if you will? 'We get excited', 'eagles care', 'biologist do their best', 'bird tend to die in secret', possibly, you can see that this is more of an emotional issue to you, than it is to me? I also left in previous quotes to support my thought that you comment here, and in national (world?) publication, about many of these foregone conclusions.

You mention things like the lead shot issue ends at the shore line and the lead shot ban is left alone where there isn't good science to support a ban. How do you reconcile that with LGF saying his science says the entire state of California is going to be subjected to a lead projectile ban? Is his science better than your science, or does the foregone conclusion tell us to follow California? How do you reconcile that with now including scavengers (eating unrecovered wildlife), quail, doves and woodcock? Haven't you shared foregone conclusions about the eating habits of the woodcock and dismissing the finding of high levels of lead in the bones of British estate upland birds, for the purposes of justifying why lead can be use in the uplands? Don't forget, politely decline the soup on your next trip!

I think, if you (meaning anyone) wants to impose policy change and new law, the burden is on them, not me to justify it. The truth is, very little has to be justified beyond feeling like it's justified. We all know lead is a human toxin, don't patronize me about how important humans are. Many bans are done to prioritize other than humans. We all know lead is a human toxin, when are we going to stop commingling the effects of kids eating paint chips with the eating habits of eagles? Question, what would a bird choose, trying to hatch a clutch with possibly thin shells or flying into a wind turbine tomorrow? When will we wake up and recognize that indiscriminate killer that knows no shoreline? Plus, if the feeling moves someone, there're plenty of body count pictures and anecdotes to blow around.

Page 3 of 17 1 2 3 4 5 16 17

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.075s Queries: 34 (0.054s) Memory: 0.8799 MB (Peak: 1.8990 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-29 13:40:22 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS