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
4 members (gunmaker, Sandlapper, Gunning Bird, 1 invisible), 350 guests, and 3 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,374
Posts544,005
Members14,391
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 16 17
#513133 05/05/18 11:12 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
People are still investigating. Somehow I hope agchemicals ARE the cause of our Quail disaster in the South. We can fix that. Food and fiber will become more expensive...Geo

http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/201...379425048828125

Geo. Newbern #513136 05/05/18 12:56 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Be wary of silver bullet solutions that nicely fit green agendas. Maybe true, maybe part true, or maybe poor science, more data and studies required.


Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
Geo. Newbern #513137 05/05/18 01:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
This study is from 2013 - I wonder if it has had any impact on pesticide use?

The direct effects of pesticides can be very high - before it was banned a few years ago, Furadan granules were thought to directly kill up to 100 million birds annually in Canada alone, many of them grassland species. Indirect impacts of insecticides must be very high, too, by drastically reducing insects that birds depend upon.

Geo. Newbern #513138 05/05/18 01:17 PM
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,398
Likes: 16
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,398
Likes: 16
Remember DDT?
Is that what you call, "Be wary of silver bullet solutions that nicely fit green agendas".

Within a decade of the ban on DDT Falcon, hawks, eagles and osprey were well on the way to recovery. Full recovery still required some heroic measures. Pesticides just generally kill, that is what they do, indiscriminately.

Geo. Newbern #513142 05/05/18 02:06 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
It is my opinion that we were duped on the lead shot "science" leading to non-tox requirements for all waterfowling and now much upland and big game. But if there is a sliver bullet out there responsible for the loss of Bobwhite quail, I'll take it...Geo

Geo. Newbern #513144 05/05/18 03:07 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Yes I remember DDT

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/bring-back-ddt

I believe that more than DDT was involved in the return of birds of prey, most importantly legal protections from shooting and a different cultural attitude toward them.


Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
Geo. Newbern #513145 05/05/18 04:27 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 452
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 452
Around here, Virginia and NC Coast nobody shot Ospreys or Eagles. Since the DDT ban amazing comeback. I am pretty sure hatch problems due to weak eggs was a major factor in their decline. I have worked and played on the water 50 plus years, we have far more of both than when I was a kid. Pelicans too.

Boats

Last edited by Boats; 05/05/18 04:30 PM.
Geo. Newbern #513146 05/05/18 05:03 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
Boats is entirely correct. There was never any doubt that DDT and related compounds were very largely responsible for the decline of bird and fish-eating raptors. They were solely responsible for the near disappearance of other fish-eating birds - the Pacific coast brown pelican was nearly gone, egrets and herons had been decimated due eggshell thinning from organochlorine pesticides. All those birds gradually became abundant again after the ban.

I rarely weigh in here on the lead issue because people get so upset about it. However, there is absolutely no doubt that ingested lead killed huge numbers of waterfowl and still kills many scavenging birds, which include eagles as well as vultures and condors. This is not a recent issue - fifty years ago a game warden on Sauvies Island outside Portland OR told me of picking up hundreds of 'green-asses' every year, ducks that had starved because ingested lead prevented them from digesting food, which just ran right through them and stained their vent feathers green. Of course the anti-hunters exploit this issue, but that does not make it 'junk science' - there has been unanimity about this among wildlife biologists and toxicologists for decades. I love my old guns and hate steel shot but facts is facts.

Geo. Newbern #513151 05/05/18 05:47 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Originally Posted By: Geo. Newbern
People are still investigating. Somehow I hope agchemicals ARE the cause of our Quail disaster in the South. We can fix that. Food and fiber will become more expensive...Geo

http://blogs.twincities.com/outdoors/201...379425048828125


Returning to the original article noted.

The American Bird Conservancy pushed the study in a news release. Who is the American Bird Conservancy? Are they an upland bird hunting friendly organization?

I note their own website while citing pesticides note habitat lost is the number one threat to birds overall. https://abcbirds.org/threat/habitat/

I also note the American Bird Conservancy actively opposes lead for any hunting. It further is out there spinning against lead. https://abcbirds.org/article/hunting-sea...-bulletsshot-2/

Then I go look at the article the OP cited. The study was basically a data-mining expedition looking at other studies between 1980 and 2003, and pesticide data from the 80s and 90s. It might have found something or it might be pushing an agenda. Data-mining can yield good results however it can also yield unreliable results as controlling for variables is tough in clouded hindsight.

The posit of the headline that pesticides-not-habitat-loss-leading-cause-of-grassland-birds-decline- is a big jump from previous thought and suspect when based on one statistical analysis study.

While I have no doubt pesticides do figure in bird populations, I do not believe they are the level of impact posited in the OP cited article.

Last edited by old colonel; 05/05/18 05:49 PM.

Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
Geo. Newbern #513152 05/05/18 05:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 286
Likes: 6
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 286
Likes: 6
Some recent studies have shown that fire ants are a major cause of quail chick mortality except it isn't what you think. The ants consume the small micro invertebrates that quail chicks need to eat before they grow big enough for grasshopper sized food. When fire ants were controlled on thousand acre sized areas, quail recruitment rose dramatically. The same problem has caused recruitment failures with Attwater Prairie chickens on the refuge at Eagle Lake. Several thousand lbs. of ant bait was donated and a large area treated to help this endangered species survive.

At least in my Central TX area, fire ants have reduced the tick population substantualy and the quail in large part have also disappeared. A lot of the quail problem is the coastal Bermuda grass/cow culture pasture conversion but not all of it.


W. E. Boyd
Geo. Newbern #513165 05/05/18 08:55 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
If people are going to blame pesticides for the bobwhite quail decline I sure wish they would be careful enough to specify which class(es) of pesticides they think caused it. Insecticides are pesticides, and some of the bad ones from days long gone certainly must share some of the blame. Fungicides are also pesticides, are they a cause ............ and how? How about herbicides? They're also pesticides. Have they killed quail .............and how? Miticides, bactericides, larvicides? They're all pesticides. I think I am pretty well versed in the use of, and the dangers of, all these classes, having held a GA certified Pesticide Applicator License since the licensing was first offered. To say that "pesticides" are responsible for this or that is pretty vague and irresponsible, IMO. And, it doesn't do much to strengthen your argument when you don't even know the difference between the different classes, and what they do or don't do.

SRH

Last edited by Stan; 05/05/18 08:55 PM.

May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513166 05/05/18 09:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: SDH-MT
Pesticides just generally kill, that is what they do, indiscriminately.



Absolutely false. They do not kill indiscriminately. Certain insecticides and larvicides kill certain species of insects and larvae. Applicators must scout fields carefully to determine what species of harmful insects are causing crop damage, and then determine if their numbers have reached an economic threshold, before deciding upon which product will best kill the target pests without reducing the numbers of the beneficial insects.

Your statement is perfect example of letting a lack of knowledge, and understanding, make you look foolish. But, you're in good company. There's no shortage of ignorance concerning pesticides.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513167 05/05/18 10:07 PM
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 64
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 64
Amen.

Thanks Stan.

LGF #513168 05/05/18 10:11 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: LGF
....There was never any doubt that DDT and related compounds were very largely responsible for the decline of bird and fish-eating raptors. They were solely responsible for the near disappearance of other fish-eating birds....

....However, there is absolutely no doubt that ingested lead killed huge numbers of waterfowl and still kills many scavenging birds, which include eagles as well as vultures and condors. This is not a recent issue - fifty years ago a game warden on Sauvies Island outside Portland OR told me of picking up hundreds of 'green-asses' every year, ducks that had starved because ingested lead....

....I love my old guns and hate steel shot but facts is facts.

I'm sure real evidence is out there some where, but I'd hope it's fair to say that second hand, now third hand anecdotes don't quite meet the facts is facts level. Another anecdote that isn't really relevant is that on a past anti lead thread, there was only one credible reference by a wildlife biologist that included lab analysis of a single Mallard found in the field, dead due to lead poisoning. Again, there may be good scientific evidence available, but it seems difficult to find.

On another point, folks familiar with the agriculture business may be able to confirm it, but I believe DDT was available as an ingredient in other commercially labeled pest control products well into the mid nineties. I'd suspect it wasn't as widely available, but I believe the truth is that it was in use well after most folks assumed a full ban was in effect.

I believe there is a disconnect between the time when people anecdotally see improvement results, and the actual time that things were outlawed. I think there is also an underappreciated increase in difficulty bringing cost effective food to consumers. I can recall living in an area as a kid that used DDT foggers in residential neighborhoods to control a mosquito outbreak. Today, when a deadly mosquito born illness outbreak occurs, the official response is for residents to look for and empty incidental standing water. Huh? Only thoughts.

craigd #513172 05/06/18 12:44 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
Craig - I'm not sure why you refer to third hand anecdotes, as I was just illustrating the fact that lead poisoning has been recognized for a long time, going back long before I learned about it from a game warden in 1968. The USFWS, state wildlife agencies, foreign wildlife agencies, and universities spent tens of millions of dollars over decades studying the issue and the evidence was overwhelming. If you are intersted in the data, not anecdotes, have a look through articles here: http://www.peregrinefund.org/subsites/conference-lead/2008PbConf_Proceedings.htm

Lead is still an issue for scavenging raptors - to keep the population going, every wild condor in California is trapped annually and its blood put through a dialysis-like process to remove lead ingested from gut piles, lost game, and ground squirrels shot with .22's.

Lead ingested from game is also an issue for humans - see some of the articles on that website. A close friend is one of the country's premier game bird biologists and a very serious deer and pig hunter. He and his wife subsist on game, and he switched to copper bullets years ago because standard expanding bullets deposit a cloud of lead in tissue well beyond the wound channel. I am not happy that California is banning lead for most game, but it is the right thing to do, for both wildlife and humans.

DDT and related compounds were banned for nearly all uses in the US in 1972 but persists in the environment and is still widely used in third world countries. North American raptors and shorebirds which migrate to Central and South America pick up heavy doses in their wintering grounds. Studies of eggs in research collections showed that the eggshell thinning which causes reproductive failure in birds started in the 1940's, right after DDT was introduced. In Europe and North America, shells became gradually thicker after the ban and as result fish-eating birds are again abundant and we have peregrines nesting in our cities. Again, the evidence was incontrovertible, not anecdotal.

Geo. Newbern #513179 05/06/18 07:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
LGF, good points--but you likely won't convince Craig. Here's the point I always make about lead and "junk science": While most scientists believe in global warming, there are also global warming "deniers" with good scientific credentials. Given how long the lead shot issue was studied, if it's "junk science", then it should be easy enough to find some wildlife biologists involved in the studies who are lead poisoning deniers. I've issued that challenge, and I've yet to see any evidence from anyone with credentials in the field of wildlife biology who's a lead poisoning denier. 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: Lead shot ban for waterfowl; most wetlands requiring nontoxic shot no matter what critters you're hunting. The simple answer I got from one wildlife biologist: The science supporting lead shot restrictions pretty much ends at the shoreline. It's much like the chemical question: Which chemicals can we use as herbicides and pesticides that target only those plants and bugs we want to kill? That's what's been done with lead shot restrictions, which ban lead shot in those situations where it's a serious potential threat, while leaving it alone where there isn't any "good science" to support the bans.

L. Brown #513181 05/06/18 09:07 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
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?

old colonel #513182 05/06/18 09:08 AM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50


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?


Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
Geo. Newbern #513183 05/06/18 10:36 AM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
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?


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

old colonel #513187 05/06/18 01:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
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?


Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
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: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
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: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
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: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
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.

Geo. Newbern #513228 05/07/18 10:03 AM
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
I am a licensed pesticide applicator, requiring mandatory upgrading seminars for five-year renewals. I use bismuth and TM for waterfowl, know lead is bad stuff for any purpose, doubt it has effect on upland in the wide-open spaces around here; public lands and plantations perhaps another story. I'm suspicious of studies that say an effect is the cause of one thing; it rarely happens in anything. For all the science in the world, we never get the final answer in a biological system. So I'm me on the side of Stan and Geo.

Geo. Newbern #513230 05/07/18 10:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Quote:
Question, what would a bird choose, trying to hatch a clutch with possibly thin shells or flying into a wind turbine tomorrow?


If this doesn't say it all. Thank's Craig, for perfectly encapsulating the hypocrisy of this debate.

It's not really about the science. It's about whether you are on the "good" side or the "bad" side. One more angle to make the use of guns and hunting more difficult.


The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
Geo. Newbern #513231 05/07/18 11:03 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693
Likes: 450
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693
Likes: 450
Green or carbon free energy is not free from negative points. Solar panels degrade much quicker than what manufacturers claim. A friend put in a solar panel farm to supply a college. His system was supposed to have a 25/30 year life expectancy. After year seven years so many panels had failed completely or produced so little he was forced to shut the entire system down. Removing them and then disposing of them cost money he had not expected to pay out for 18 more years. He put the land back into farm production.

Every type of system has their negative points. Wind turbines kill a lot of flying birds. The worst Ive seen are the solar mirror farms and the birds being burned out of the air. You cant see it on YouTube. Scary/funny stuff.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Originally Posted By: Stan
Originally Posted By: SDH-MT
Pesticides just generally kill, that is what they do, indiscriminately.



Absolutely false. They do not kill indiscriminately. Certain insecticides and larvicides kill certain species of insects and larvae. Applicators must scout fields carefully to determine what species of harmful insects are causing crop damage, and then determine if their numbers have reached an economic threshold, before deciding upon which product will best kill the target pests without reducing the numbers of the beneficial insects.

Your statement is perfect example of letting a lack of knowledge, and understanding, make you look foolish. But, you're in good company. There's no shortage of ignorance concerning pesticides.

SRH


Truth is no one knows the impact of pesticides...especially some field jOckey

Geo. Newbern #513254 05/07/18 05:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
JR and Stan - I learned a lot about Furadan (carbofuran) because I do lion conservation in Africa and it has been used to poison predators on a very large scale across the continent. If Furadan granules are used correctly as Stan describes, it is of little danger to birds, but when it is broadcast on the surface it kills them in large numbers. The number I cited from a Canadian study gave a wide range of estimates because no one is counting dead dickey birds in agricultural fields; 100 million was at the high end of estimates. However, even if mortality was only 50% of that, it was still dreadful. Canada finally followed the EU and the US in banning it for most uses.

The American manufacturer of Furadan claimed for years that it was perfectly safe in birds and mammal, calling all the evidence junk science (which means any research that threatens profits, as in cigarettes and cancer or fossil fuels and climate change). They continued to stonewall until 60 Minutes, with an audience of about 30 million, did a piece on lion poisoning in Kenya, after which they withdrew it from the Kenya market the following day. However, it is still universally available in Africa as generic carbofuran from China and India. It is also used to poison ducks and fish which are then sold for human consumption!

Off topic, but because of widespread predator poisoning with Furadan, vultures which were ubiquitous in Africa until 15 years ago are now nearly gone (sorry, Craig, but the Peregrine Fund is at the forefront of trying to turn this around - junk science, of course). So are the lions the poisoning is aimed at. Vultures were essentially eliminated from Asia, too, due to an entirely different cause: the NSAID diclofenac causes kidney failure in vultures and was very widely used in cattle. One result of the Asian vulture extinction has been a huge increase in feral dogs and a corresponding increase in human rabies. When the cause of the die-off was finally worked out, India and Nepal moved quickly to ban diclofenac use for cattle, but the African countries have done nothing about Furadan, even though other nematicides are available.

Geo. Newbern #513258 05/07/18 06:44 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
Amazing example of the law of unintended consequences, not junk science, and there are alternatives
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1351921/

LGF #513264 05/07/18 07:43 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: LGF
....in Africa and it has been used to poison predators on a very large scale across the continent. If Furadan granules are used correctly as Stan describes, it is of little danger to birds...:

....poisoning with Furadan, vultures which were ubiquitous in Africa until 15 years ago are now nearly gone (sorry, Craig, but the Peregrine Fund is at the forefront of trying to turn this around - junk science, of course)....

LGF, I appreciate the time and effort you give in responding and sharing your experiences. I can t help but ask, if there is a proper way to use beneficial products, why are we demonizing the product and in other examples the hunter/shooter for misuse? Shouldnt the focus be on the criminal, not the law abiding?

On a personal note, I believe the peregrine fund has an agenda that is anti gun and hunting. It presents skewed science to meet agendas not to promote sporting firearms interests or other shared use of natural resources. That may or may not be referred to as junk science, but its skewed none the less. Whats the future hold, do they sponsor youth shooting and hunting programs?

Again, and Ive asked Larry too, why do friends of the sporting use of firearms penalize the law abiding? If theres activism to be promoted, shouldnt it be against the criminal instead of the easy target, law abiding folks?

LGF #513266 05/07/18 08:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: LGF
JR and Stan - If Furadan granules are used correctly as Stan describes, it is of little danger to birds, but when it is broadcast on the surface it kills them in large numbers.


Of course it does, LGF. If an automobile is used in a way it is not designed, or legalized, to be, it will kill many people. We are not discussing what goes on in Africa, China and India on this thread, or we weren't, until you took it in that direction. We also weren't discussing the impact on lions and vultures due to off label use. We were, and I hope are, discussing the impact on quail, and specifically bobwhite quail. Understand that spreading Furadan on the surface of the soils is off label, and was never labeled by the EPA, or sanctioned by the maker FMC, for use in the USA or Canada, AFAIK.. The use of it in Kenya by ranchers to kill lions that were preying upon their livestock was not the intended use of the carbamate insecticide.

If the product is to be blamed when it is used in a manner unintended by the maker, then we are in big trouble. Consider gun control. That is the gun haters' biggest argument, that the gun itself is somehow evil. I won't bore you with numerous other examples of tools that are misused in the hands of criminals. Point is ............a product is not to blame when it is used in a criminal manner, unintended by the maker. If you can show me where Furadan was licensed and labeled for surface application in quail habitation areas I will stand corrected. But, if not, maybe sticking a little closer to the topic would be helpful.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
HomelessjOe #513267 05/07/18 08:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Originally Posted By: Stan
Originally Posted By: SDH-MT
Pesticides just generally kill, that is what they do, indiscriminately.



Absolutely false. They do not kill indiscriminately. Certain insecticides and larvicides kill certain species of insects and larvae. Applicators must scout fields carefully to determine what species of harmful insects are causing crop damage, and then determine if their numbers have reached an economic threshold, before deciding upon which product will best kill the target pests without reducing the numbers of the beneficial insects.

Your statement is perfect example of letting a lack of knowledge, and understanding, make you look foolish. But, you're in good company. There's no shortage of ignorance concerning pesticides.

SRH


Truth is no one knows the impact of pesticides...especially some field jOckey


True that ...........and no one knows the impact of killing five turkeys a day on the local population, especially some so called turkey call maker. wink But, they're both within the law .....................aren't they?

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513269 05/07/18 09:00 PM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
No matter how hypocritical any of us want to become, we are all in cahoots & complicit with pesticide use.
If there were no agricultural chemicals our population would probably be half what it is today. You would not be as blessed with the many grand children you now have.
Everyone's prosperity would be greatly reduced & food would cost what you would be surprised at.

It is contemporary low cost slave labor.
We seem to have made our choice with our hip pocket.
Had money not been the object of our desires.
There will be consequences.

As mentioned, the use & application is much refined these days over what I remember from my youth.
Also there is much IPM (integrated pest management) practiced now.

I still do not like the stuff, but that is just another of 40,000 compromises I live with.
I have faith that all will work out in the end.

moses #513270 05/07/18 09:32 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: moses

Everyone's prosperity would be greatly reduced & food would cost what you would be surprised at.

It is contemporary low cost slave labor.
We seem to have made our choice with our hip pocket.
Had money not been the object of our desires.
There will be consequences.



Peace, order status quo must be maintained, therefore, pesticides, herbicides,
genetically enhanced food......food farms stay. Not everyone can afford organically grown vegetable or free range raised meat. I believe if food cost went up sharply along with price of energy items like gasoline went up my countrymen and countrywomen would actually go out in the streets. Obviously while the poor still own guns the elite leadership can not allow for that to happen. It looks like we will have to dig in a little deeper to enjoy good hunting experience.

I support continued use of lead shot for hunting and sporting use because there is no personal downside for me and being nice caring fella I don't want those owning many classic old guns take financial beating if non-lead shot is mandated for all use.

Geo. Newbern #513275 05/07/18 10:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
Stan - sorry, I tend to run on sometimes; my life has revolved around lions and Furadan for too long. And I worked on organochlorines in African raptors at the beginning of my career, so know a bit about that history, too. A historical note closer to home: George W.'s last act in office was to pardon a guy convicted of poisoning bald eagles with Furadan.

Of course people who use things responsibly (like guns) should not be penalized for the criminals who don't. Sorry to bring this back to Africa, but where there is no law enforcement, in practice there is no way to control people's behavior. The only way to stop wildlife poisoning in Africa would be to get rid of carbofuran entirely. Organophosphate arachnicides (tick dip) and strychnine used to be the predator poisons of choice, but those are no longer available. Then in the late 1990's people discovered how cheap and effective Furadan was and predator numbers plummeted -its a helluva lot easier to kill off all the predators as we did than to keep your cattle corralled at night, as was done for ten thousand years.

Craig, if you look at the papers in that symposium sponsored by the Peregrine Fund, you will see that the authors were based at respectable government agencies and academic institutions, not PETA. The Peregrine Fund is concerned about eagles and condors, many of which die every year from lead in scavenged carcasses. Lead shot does not fall into the simple categories of proper/improper use - when birds eat it, they die. California has (so far) exempted quail and doves from the lead shot ban, presumably because they are not very likely to be eaten by condors, but there certainly doesn't seem a good rationale to ban lead for turkeys. What can I say? Its California.

Geo. Newbern #513278 05/07/18 10:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
I'm always amazed at the sheer magnitude of knowledge that some folks amass without any training or experience, or even a little keyboard research at the very least. In this day and age, anyone can go to scholar.google.com and become at least superficially familiar with the actual primary literature on any topic, including Furadan and bird mortality, even when properly applied in the fields. And topics like lead shot and waterfowl have a plethora of science supporting very clear conclusions. Yet, a few folks, always the same few folks claim to know everything about any subject and are always somehow in direct opposition to those conclusions. How is this?


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


BrentD, Prof #513279 05/07/18 10:58 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: BrentD
I'm always amazed at the sheer magnitude of knowledge that some folks amass without any training or experience, or even a little keyboard research at the very least. In this day and age, anyone can go to scholar.google.com....

....Yet, a few folks, always the same few folks claim to know everything about any subject and are always somehow in direct opposition to those conclusions. How is this?

Brent, it ain't easy being one of the few folks, but no, I shouldn't include anyone other than myself. It only seems that way when folks like you are always right. Personally, I can understand that they're toxins that can affect wildlife. What, in your expert, unassailable opinion are they, and what should be done about them?

Geo. Newbern #513280 05/07/18 11:07 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
Brent -

from Wikipedia: 'Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs.'

We all reflexively dismiss information that doesn't conform to our biases. Objectivity and critical thinking don't come easy.

LGF #513281 05/07/18 11:52 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: LGF
....Craig, if you look at the papers in that symposium sponsored by the Peregrine Fund, you will see that the authors were based at respectable government agencies and academic institutions, not PETA....

....What can I say? Its California.

It's a type of cognitive bias and a systemic error of inductive reasoning? LGF, no kidding, I appreciate your point of view. I don't understand, why can't I just make the claim that I'm extensively familiar with primary source research? Obviously, it must be some sort of bias that says poke fun at craigd, otherwise, I'd be credible, right? Are you alluding to political bias on the state and national level, but ignoring it to fit your notions?

Geo. Newbern #513284 05/08/18 01:00 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Unless one is an expert in or has substantial knowledge in given field and has sound analytical skills Google is not a friend.

Jagermeister #513287 05/08/18 07:49 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Originally Posted By: Jagermeister
Unless one is an expert in or has substantial knowledge in given field and has sound analytical skills Google is not a friend.


That is simply not true. Just avoid secondary literature. If you read blog posts and editorial diatribes and cannot separate them from original studies, then you do, indeed, have a problem. Anyone that looks at the primary literature, on the other hand, finds it quite clear that lead shot and granulated pesticides are pretty well understood and the basic conclusions (they are toxic to wildlife, of course) is well known and accepted.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


BrentD, Prof #513319 05/08/18 10:33 AM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: BrentD
I'm always amazed at the sheer magnitude of knowledge that some folks amass without any training or experience, or even a little keyboard research at the very least. In this day and age, anyone can go to scholar.google.com and become at least superficially familiar with the actual primary literature on any topic, including Furadan and bird mortality, even when properly applied in the fields. And topics like lead shot and waterfowl have a plethora of science supporting very clear conclusions. Yet, a few folks, always the same few folks claim to know everything about any subject and are always somehow in direct opposition to those conclusions. How is this?



Hahaha, this is coming from a guy who couldn't explain how his precious and infallible junk science references contained wildly differing numbers for what constituted a lethal dose of lead in eagles. In one of his references in last year's "Lead and Condor Deaths" thread, an eagle was brought in with a massive lethal off-the-charts overdose of lead, but somehow, it was able to still fly and perch in a tree.

It shouldn't take a lot of smarts to read such crap and realize that something is not adding up. Too bad that inflated egos are no substitute for critical analysis and rational thought.

Brent and Larry Clown, the ex-CIA intelligence analyst, aren't able to use their own brains to question the veracity of such obvious garbage that passes for science without peer review. Poor Larry still demands to see a competing view that proves lead ammo wasn't the huge problem that agenda driven anti-lead activists claimed. He and Brent cling to their anti-lead ammo bias while continuing to ignore the many alternate sources of lead that are much more bio-available than shot or bullet fragments. I still love their junk science crap that suggested the majority of deer gut piles were laced with hundreds of lead bullet fragments. The first step in using your brain is the requirement that you actually have one.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Geo. Newbern #513364 05/08/18 06:34 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
And so it goes.


Bill Ferguson
Geo. Newbern #513368 05/08/18 07:59 PM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Seems we want our cake, and to eat it too! I read most of the article that started this topic a while ago, I think 2013? I had the great fortune to live in the heart of pheasant country in MN from 2003 until 2013. This I can tell you as true. The removal of most of the CRP acres there, (2010) caused an almost instant reduction in pheasants. $7.00 corn does not come around too often! A couple wet, cold springs reduced them yet more. I would imagine with all the increased ag activity the chems were a flowin! I go back and hunt every fall for a couple weeks. The last two years were OK. Not even in the same league as '04,5,6,7,8, 9. The death of a hundred cuts I think.

Geo. Newbern #513375 05/08/18 09:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
LGF, I want to take a moment to thank you for your concerns for African wildlife, not only lions. I also don't want to give the impression that I am not. I understand better the issues Africa faces with poaching and poisoning because of your posts.

But, I also wish the definitive answer could be reached as to the total impact that insecticides have had on quail, which was the OT. I have strong opinions, based upon a lifetime of watching quail almost daily, seeing how they interact with modern farming practices, and seeing how the local populations have changed with the changes in row cropping. I have seen quail populations fall, rise, and fall again. Odd thing is, when they fall they never go away completely. There are always quail, just a lower population. Those that are here still feed out into cropland where insecticides are used, nest in the edges of fields that are sprayed from time to time, and raise their chicks there. If the insecticides were as bad on them as some claim, there would be none left, and I would have found dead quail at least once every now and then. I haven't found a dead quail around my fields, that I can recall, in decades, and understand that I'm out there every day, compassing into the thousands of acres.

It really is not important that anyone take my observations as having any value. I'm considered just a "field jockey", and know nothing about quail, according to at least one here. But, I just grow weary of so much of the blame for the bobwhite quail decline being laid at the feet of the American farmer. Farmers grow what the market demands. The market demands it be cheap, relatively speaking. This puts extreme pressures on agriculture to produce it cheaper, so the margins can allow us to stay in business, and make a living.

In closing, I want to cite one example that may be of some interest to those who are truly interested in quail, and not just finding someone to be the scapegoat. There is a very large plantation that adjoins me on the east side of my land. It instituted a quail program in the early 80s, to bring them back. It succeeded. Burning, no insecticides, no release of pen raised birds, supplemental feeding, and creating ideal cover caused the population of wild birds to explode. It reached the point that they were finding and flushing between 6 and 7 covies per hour of having dogs on the ground. This lasted for several years. Walt Rosene, Tall Timbers........ all were amazed and thrilled at Wade Plantation's success. Then, with no changes to their practices, the populations crashed. All the experts were again called in to no avail. No answer has ever been found and today they're lucky to get six points on covies in a whole day. Intensive farming began there after the crash, including the use of all pesticides used by the other row crop farmers in our area. The quail hold their own at this point. No further decline, and................no real answers.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513378 05/08/18 10:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
This is what happened in West Texas Stan
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140814191345.htm

Made it to OK
http://uplandjournal.ipbhost.com/topic/62631-parasitic-eye-worm-in-bobwhite-quail/

and this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5338897/

and these https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jeu.12330

It does seem that nature's way is to adjust over-population with a parasitic or infectious agent.

Not to get OT but Ebola is back in DRC and ticks & mosquitos, and the diseases they carry, are taking over; Zika, West Nile, RMSF, Lyme, several forms of Ehrlichiosis, and Chikungunya
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2018/p0501-vs-vector-borne.html

Geo. Newbern #513382 05/08/18 11:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Appears to me there are two choices.

Murmur. Exodus 16:11,12,13.

Sanctify yourselves against tomorrow. Numbers 11:18 read on to 32.
O.M

Geo. Newbern #513388 05/09/18 06:55 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Thanks, Drew. I've been reading those articles on caecal and eye parasites for years, mostly out of the Rolling Plains Quail Research Ranch. I have some hope that because of the great research that has been done in Texas, that we are closer to finding an answer to the decline, not only the long term, but the sudden crashes in populations.

One of our members on this board, and a friend of mine, mel5141, is a resident of the area, and is intimately involved with the research ongoing. They had extraordinary quail seasons back to back, not good mind you, but extraordinary according to him. Bird counts remained super high. I couldn't book a hunt anywhere in that area of Texas, then all of a sudden they crashed again last year. Last I heard from him there was not a definitive answer as to the cause, but that's been a few months. Sure wish he would stop by and bring us up to date on the latest.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513394 05/09/18 08:34 AM
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 324
Likes: 9
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: May 2006
Posts: 324
Likes: 9
I don't get it. Here in south Jersey when DDT was used we had a pretty healthy quail and pheasant population. Declines started in the late 7o's and continued to present to the point that there aren't any in my area for years. I think DDT should be legal for limited uses. It's why we where bedbug free for many years until the third world invasion that we have brought them back.

Geo. Newbern #513395 05/09/18 09:16 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,398
Likes: 307
You might consider moving tanky frown
http://www.state.nj.us/health/cd/documen...es_brochure.pdf
and a new one
https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/e...stay/542350002/

Come on out to AZ...other than Valley Fever...Hantavirus...Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever...and the Plague up on the Navajo Rez. With our current crop of C.A. 'migrants' Dengue is probably on the way too.

or just stay there and we'll ship you some enterotoxigenic E. Coli on lettuce from Yuma wink

Geo. Newbern #513397 05/09/18 10:02 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693
Likes: 450
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693
Likes: 450
Stan, if they ever figure out the quail issue Id be happy as a pig in... well you know. I spent 20 years and more money than I want to admit to spending, trying to get quail established back onto my lands. Had three separate stable populations and a decent fourth one started. There was no herbicide or pesticide reason for their collapse because on three locations the nearest heavy farming exposure to them would have been 1/2 to 3/4 a mile. Every area suffered complete population collapse they year after the State DNR introduced turkeys into the area. Dont know if the turkeys directly went after the quail, brought a parasite with them or just out competed them.

Turkeys are a big, flashy, easily seen bird which the DNR treats like a big game animal. Its a money maker for them. Personally I wish they never introduced them onto my lands. There were no turkeys on our land going back for more than a hundred years that we know of. A rare Black Bear about 80 years ago but never turkeys. Quail in excellent numbers, rabbits and deer once they were introduced in the early 1930s. Until then we had no deer at all. Now its deer, turkeys and nothing else.

I tried almost everything. Some things worked for a while and some things were a waste of time and money. I did conclude the State DNR quail expert may have read a lot of books and papers but did not have a clue what he was doing and could only parrot information given to him. If deer and turkeys were not such hearty critters, with a little DNR careful management, they be extinct in 20 years.

SDH-MT #513444 05/10/18 12:26 AM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: SDH-MT
Remember DDT?
Is that what you call, "Be wary of silver bullet solutions that nicely fit green agendas".

Within a decade of the ban on DDT Falcon, hawks, eagles and osprey were well on the way to recovery. Full recovery still required some heroic measures. Pesticides just generally kill, that is what they do, indiscriminately.


It's tough to find quail population data from the distant past when few people were at all concerned about declining numbers, but what data there is seems to suggest that the good old days for quail coincided with the years when DDT use was at its' highest point.




Pheasant populations in Iowa were also much higher when DDT was the crop duster's best friend. But it would be silly to suggest that the widespread use of DDT was the only factor, in the manner that lead shot is blamed for everything :



But don't tell that to Steve, or Brent, or Larry, or LGF, or they will pretend to ignore you. I certainly don't expect that they would bother to look at any of these links. But for those who have brains, and actually use them to think and reason, there is some very interesting reading here that illustrates the agenda that carries over into much of the junk science that has been used to impose lead ammunition bans:

https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-truth-about-ddt-and-silent-spring

https://www.sites.google.com/site/paulroebling/home/the-ddt-fraud-and-other-liberal-lies

https://whatthecrap.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/the-ban-of-ddt-science-that-wasnt/

But, but, but... what about the decline in eagle populations when DDT was in use? Well, Bald eagles were reportedly threatened with extinction in 1921 25 years before widespread use of DDT, or After 15 years of heavy and widespread usage of DDT, Audubon Society ornithologists counted 25 percent more eagles per observer in 1960 than during the pre-DDT 1941 bird census.

I really liked the quote from Albert Einstein at the top of the second article. Here it is... suitable for framing... my gift to Brent:



P.S.-- For rocky mtn bill... it only took about 15 seconds to add that picture to this post. No shit!





A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Geo. Newbern #513446 05/10/18 03:28 AM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Er, DDT whacks the hawks.
Quail numbers are up in those years.
No DDT, the hawks recover.
Then er, um, some how the quails take a whack.
Did I interpret something in that,
Or,
Do I just need help ?

O.M

Geo. Newbern #513448 05/10/18 06:39 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
There are more raptors here now than I can remember in my 66 years on this sod. Smaller hawks that are such devastating predators of quail, such as Cooper's, goshawks and sharp-shinned are thick as fleas. One here claims they are terribly inefficient at killing quail, but I know better. Seen it with my own eyes too much to deny.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #513449 05/10/18 06:52 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Also this, before federal protection, (1972) hawks were aggressively managed at the county level in quite a few states. A bounty was placed on them. Bring in a set of feet and you'd get a buck or two. Hawks, owls, gophers and ground squirrels were a good source of income for farm kids in the mid west. Not to mention the hawks were shot on sight by most farmers or their wives, protecting the chickens. There were a lot more people living in the country then, a lot more. All with a vested interest in those chickens! Now only a few live on the land there. They mostly get their chicken same as those that live in town, at the store.

moses #513450 05/10/18 07:20 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Can't draw any conclusions from that. Data is only as good as study design, sample size, statistical methods used in analysis of data. Who published the results and what journal it was published in is usually good indication of quality of work. Added to the problem are other factors that affect quail populations that need to be factored in: other predators: cats, crows, rats, foxes, raccoons, skunks,....loss of habitat,...There are plenty of squirrels, rabbits, wildfowl, turkeys,......no worries.

Geo. Newbern #513454 05/10/18 07:46 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Where are you seeing plenty of squirrels, rabbits and wildfowl? Turkeys, yes. They are tough customers and do a good job of defending their young. Not much will take out a turkey head to head. Plus they roost in trees, above the fray. Small predators avian or other aren't much of a threat to a turkey. Crows are opportunists and scavengers mostly.
Many studies have been done, money spent and spent, and again. Nice work if you can get it! There seems to be some intangibles that just can't be pinned down or there would be an answer. SO even if you cannot "draw a conclusion" from practical experience you can at least add it to the collective knowledge base and accept that even the unwashed have eyes.

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: Stan


But, I just grow weary of so much of the blame for the bobwhite quail decline being laid at the feet of the American farmer.



Stan, I can't blame you for feeling that way. At the same time, however, American agriculture is clearly "to blame" for reductions in wildlife populations, simply because of the changes that have taken place--mostly beginning in the last half of the last century. Bigger fields. "Cleaner" farming (weed control). I recently drove through Illinois, from north to south (it's a darned LONG state!) and back again. Shared driving duties with my wife. We were driving through farm country, much of it flat as a table top. At one point I asked her how long it had been since we'd seen any fences. I've been watching fencerows disappear in Iowa for a very long time, and it's not at all unusual to see fields with no fences along roads--mainly because more livestock is raised in confinements, which means they aren't wandering around in the fields, which in turn means there's no need for a fence to keep them from wandering out onto the road. But we'd go for miles without ever seeing a fence on farm ground in Illinois. Really struck me. And those "micro-habitats", like fencerows, are important to upland birds like pheasants and quail.

I think Illinois market hunter and famed shotgunner Captain Bogardus may have been one of the first to note the impact of habitat changes on wildlife populations. In a book written not long after the Civil War, Bogardus noted how--as more and more of Illinois' soil was broken for farming--bird hunters were seeing fewer and fewer prairie chickens. But more quail! Agriculture back then--and for a long time--was the bobwhite's friend. (True also of pheasants, after they were introduced.) But certainly not the prairie chicken's friend. Those birds need large expanses of unbroken grasslands.

So we traded prairie chickens for quail, and had great quail populations across the Midwest (if you didn't go too far north) and the South for a long time. But as agriculture became more intensive--partly Washington's fault, because farmers were told to farm fencerow to fencerow, because we were going to feed the world--certain species of wildlife suffered. Game birds like quail and pheasants were losers. So chemicals are only one small part of an overall trend in late 20th century/21st century agriculture. Unless farmers intentionally "farm for wildlife", it's very easy for them to pretty much wipe out wildlife, simply by going about their business.

Unless Washington steps in with something like the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays them NOT to farm fencerow to fencerow. (Assuming there are fencerows still left.) Or unless the farmer is sufficiently interested in wildlife to leave undisturbed pockets of habitat--assuming he can afford to do that and still make a living.

Last edited by L. Brown; 05/10/18 08:01 AM.
Geo. Newbern #513456 05/10/18 08:01 AM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Yes, I hear you guys. The same here.
Like the hunt master says, there are many more predators as well.
Foxes used to be persecuted worse than Roman Christians & their pelts were worth upward of thirty bucks.
They were reprieved by the same ones who want to save the world single handedly by banning everything. Little realizing that freeing the robbers, now every house is robbed & the innocent are sentenced to pay the price.

Crows copped it in the neck mercilessly & every boy had a gun.
Their numbers were only impacted slightly but they knew their place.
Now the boys have a cell phone & no shooters licence. They never look or learn about crows being called a murder & systematically working every nest in the area.

In towns here the accipiter's go under the house veranda's & reach their yellow legs into budgie cages & pull the pet birds out through the bars.

Quails cannot stand the constant attack.

O.M

Jagermeister #513457 05/10/18 08:05 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: Jagermeister
Can't draw any conclusions from that. Data is only as good as study design, sample size, statistical methods used in analysis of data. Who published the results and what journal it was published in....

That's a good start, Jm. Of course, we could be a bit more specific about the criterion, unless it's to our advantage to be vague. I'd hope it applies to both sides of a discussion.

With wildlife competing for less habitat, I'd wonder also if any species that're on an upswing have done so to the disadvantage of others. I'd also wonder about things like rooting animals such as feral pigs in some areas that weren't around in appreciable numbers at times in the past.

Geo. Newbern #513458 05/10/18 08:15 AM
Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Oct 2015
Posts: 593
Feral pis & ground nesting birds. Birds lose.
A pig eats everything, both the placenta & the lamb.
O.M

L. Brown #513459 05/10/18 08:18 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
Originally Posted By: Stan


But, I just grow weary of so much of the blame for the bobwhite quail decline being laid at the feet of the American farmer.



Stan, I can't blame you for feeling that way. At the same time, however, American agriculture is clearly "to blame" for reductions in wildlife populations, simply because of the changes that have taken place--mostly beginning in the last half of the last century. Bigger fields. "Cleaner" farming (weed control). I recently drove through Illinois, from north to south (it's a darned LONG state!) and back again. Shared driving duties with my wife. We were driving through farm country, much of it flat as a table top. At one point I asked her how long it had been since we'd seen any fences. I've been watching fencerows disappear in Iowa for a very long time, and it's not at all unusual to see fields with no fences along roads--mainly because more livestock is raised in confinements, which means they aren't wandering around in the fields, which in turn means there's no need for a fence to keep them from wandering out onto the road. But we'd go for miles without ever seeing a fence on farm ground in Illinois. Really struck me. And those "micro-habitats", like fencerows, are important to upland birds like pheasants and quail.

I think Illinois market hunter and famed shotgunner Captain Bogardus may have been one of the first to note the impact of habitat changes on wildlife populations. In a book written not long after the Civil War, Bogardus noted how--as more and more of Illinois' soil was broken for farming--bird hunters were seeing fewer and fewer prairie chickens. But more quail! Agriculture back then--and for a long time--was the bobwhite's friend. (True also of pheasants, after they were introduced.) But certainly not the prairie chicken's friend. Those birds need large expanses of unbroken grasslands.

So we traded prairie chickens for quail, and had great quail populations across the Midwest (if you didn't go too far north) and the South for a long time. But as agriculture became more intensive--partly Washington's fault, because farmers were told to farm fencerow to fencerow, because we were going to feed the world--certain species of wildlife suffered. Game birds like quail and pheasants were losers. So chemicals are only one small part of an overall trend in late 20th century/21st century agriculture. Unless farmers intentionally "farm for wildlife", it's very easy for them to pretty much wipe out wildlife, simply by going about their business.

Unless Washington steps in with something like the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays them NOT to farm fencerow to fencerow. (Assuming there are fencerows still left.) Or unless the farmer is sufficiently interested in wildlife to leave undisturbed pockets of habitat--assuming he can afford to do that and still make a living.


And, Larry, if the American farmer had NOT increased production to feed the world, who would be getting the blame for worldwide hunger? Huh? You know the answer to that as well as I, even if you won't admit it. Nobody is saying habitat loss isn't partly to blame for the quail decline, it's a big part of it. It's just not right to blame agriculture alone for it when people were demanding plenty, and cheap, food.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
L. Brown #513460 05/10/18 08:21 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
....Really struck me. And those "micro-habitats", like fencerows, are important to upland birds like pheasants and quail....

....as agriculture became more intensive--partly Washington's fault, because farmers were told to farm fencerow to fencerow, because we were going to feed the world--certain species of wildlife suffered....

It's interesting to read that there may be non pesticide related reasons that affect some wildlife. It's also interesting to note that political agenda may affect some wildlife. I wonder if policy is justified by funding, generating and using only 'scientific' primary source publications that fit agenda, not where science takes scientists or users of resources away from the beltway?

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: Stan
[quote=L. Brown]
And, Larry, if the American farmer had NOT increased production to feed the world, who would be getting the blame for worldwide hunger? Huh? You know the answer to that as well as I, even if you won't admit it. Nobody is saying habitat loss isn't partly to blame for the quail decline, it's a big part of it. It's just not right to blame agriculture alone for it when people were demanding plenty, and cheap, food.

SRH


Stan, I'm not so sure that anyone would have blamed American farmers for world hunger. Not if they had their heads screwed on straight.

It's a wonderful idea to think that American agriculture can wipe out world hunger. But here's the problem: Somebody has to pay the farmer for the crops and livestock he produces. And it's usually not the starving masses in the Third World, nor is it their governments. It often ends up being OUR government, which means the American taxpayer. And that concept only goes so far--as in how much can we afford to simply give away to feed the world? It's like asking how much can we afford to spend on defense to play the world's policeman? Same concept, different problem.

Most people--if they ever knew in the first place--have forgotten that when CRP started back in 1985, it was at least as much an attempt to reduce an oversupply of grain etc which had driven prices down--and more than a few farmers out of business--as it was a conservation plan. Carter caused part of the problem when he "punished" the Soviet Union for invading Afghanistan by slapping an embargo on grain (and keeping our Olympic team from participating in the Moscow games in 1980). The Russians were a big and reliable customer back then . . . until they weren't. And that was more or less the start of the farm crisis in the 80's--because you can't solve a surplus problem by giving away the surplus and not putting any money in the farmer's pocket. So we took a whole bunch of land (over 30 million acres) out of production. That's one way to deal with a surplus--but you have to pay the farmer for the land that's now growing grass or trees instead of corn or soybeans or wheat.

What DOES work for farmers is to focus on products that go to paying customers. As income increases, people pretty much all over the world tend to put more meat in their diets--because they can afford it. In the 90's, the so-called "Asian tigers" were doing very well. And it was not a coincidence that about the same time, we started seeing big hog confinement operations spring up all over Iowa. A growing marked for pork . . . or at least there was until the Asian tigers slipped into a recession. Then it's hello oversupply--and hello lower prices.

So it's not just who's hungry where, and for what--but it's also who can pay, and are we going to slap an embargo (or maybe a tariff) on agricultural commodities?

Gets really complicated in a hurry. And anyone who thinks the American farmer should be blamed for not producing enough to feed the world is thinking about the whole mess at a very basic level. And the devil, as usual, is in the details.

I was fortunate enough to live in probably the best place in the country to hunt pheasants from the late 80's to the early 2000's. And I probably killed 95% of my birds on private land. So I've always been very respectful of farmers, and living in a big farm state like Iowa (and paying more attention than most people who grew up in a city--although John Deere tractors put clothes on our backs, a roof over our heads, and food on the table when I was growing up), I was lucky enough to see a couple million acres of great pheasant habitat spring up almost overnight. And when most of those big fields went away, I understood that it was Washington--not the farmer--that was to blame. DC has been mucking around with ag policy at least since the Depression. And sometimes it's been good for both the farmer and for wildlife, and sometimes it's been good for one but not the other. I like the win/win times when there are a lot of birds, but I understand it's not really the farmer to blame when there aren't. The farmers don't make the rules, and they do the best they can in a business that can be very volatile and has to put up with a whole lot of interference from Washington.

Last edited by L. Brown; 05/10/18 10:02 AM.
Geo. Newbern #513476 05/10/18 10:27 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
I'm not going to argue that worldwide starvation would ensue if there were no more crops grown in America, but I believe it. There are millions of people worldwide that are able to eat because the American farmer can produce grains and oilseeds cheaper than anybody else, per unit. The point is that the American public expects cheap food, and government programs have been designed to keep it that way. Ag Sec'y Earl Butz was the one who said "Plant fence row to fence row boys, and we'll (government) sell it for you". Well, that worked great, albeit at the cost of wildlife habitat, until two embargoes singled out agricultural products and we lost the Russian market, then others. (They never came back, either.) Once again, American agriculture carried the weight for everybody else in America. Those two were unilateral embargoes, that affected no other American produced products except for agricultural.

Just say it once Larry, and I won't mention it again............ "The loss of wildlife habitat is not all farmer's fault. The consumers' demand for cheap food is partly to blame, too".

SRH

Last edited by Stan; 05/10/18 10:28 AM.

May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: Stan


Just say it once Larry, and I won't mention it again............ "The loss of wildlife habitat is not all farmer's fault. The consumers' demand for cheap food is partly to blame, too".

SRH


You'll get no quarrel from me on that, Stan! Anyone who travels in other developed countries and sees what they pay for food (and gasoline, for that matter) can't help but understand that we have it pretty good. Tangled relationships between farmers and Uncle Sam, but damned straight the consumers benefit from it.

Geo. Newbern #516455 06/21/18 04:57 PM
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 441
GLS Offline
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 4,074
Likes: 441
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/anim...m=.5f047d37ce4d

13 bald eagles found in a field in 2016 poisoned.


Geo. Newbern #516458 06/21/18 06:14 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
That is very sad. The product name is Furadan. It was only legal to be used in underground application. I have used it in the past, applied it properly and according to the label, and never saw any evidence of toxicity in any animal or avian life. It is a federal offense to use this product above ground.

Like so many other tools which have the capability to kill, misuse results in the tool being blamed, and not the perpetrator who misused it. Whoever improperly used the Furadan should pay the penalty, and it should be harsh.

Thanks for the link, Gil

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Originally Posted By: Stan
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Originally Posted By: Stan
Originally Posted By: SDH-MT
Pesticides just generally kill, that is what they do, indiscriminately.



Absolutely false. They do not kill indiscriminately. Certain insecticides and larvicides kill certain species of insects and larvae. Applicators must scout fields carefully to determine what species of harmful insects are causing crop damage, and then determine if their numbers have reached an economic threshold, before deciding upon which product will best kill the target pests without reducing the numbers of the beneficial insects.

Your statement is perfect example of letting a lack of knowledge, and understanding, make you look foolish. But, you're in good company. There's no shortage of ignorance concerning pesticides.

SRH


Truth is no one knows the impact of pesticides...especially some field jOckey


True that ...........and no one knows the impact of killing five turkeys a day on the local population, especially some so called turkey call maker. wink But, they're both within the law .....................aren't they?

SRH


You can "so call" me anything you want Stan...

I was referring to King Brown the licensed pesticide field jockey...sorry you thought the shoe fit you.

Hard to deny that some very bad pesticides were within the law for years and years.

And its also hard for quail to compete against the easy way out for the 'so called' modern farmer.

No till...poison the weeds then plant with mostly genetically modified seed then poison some more and more and more...then harvest.

In my opinion the modern farmer has been made lazy by the chemical companies...but what could a "so called" know ?

Convince me the chemical companies give a damn about a quail.

Geo. Newbern #516490 06/22/18 05:23 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Farming is back braking work with long hours. These people aren't lazy but must be more and more efficient to provide affordable food to increasing number of mouths. Two things politicians have to be worried about are price of food and price of energy. If those rise quickly the electorate will actually go out into the streets and demand real meaningful changes. Those politicians and individuals who pull their strings can't afford that especially since despite their best efforts the masses are still armed.

Geo. Newbern #516494 06/22/18 06:30 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: Homeless Joe
I was referring to King Brown the licensed pesticide field jockey...sorry you thought the shoe fit you.


And I'm sorry I misunderstood you.

Originally Posted By: Homeless Joe
Convince me the chemical companies give a damn about a quail.


Won't try to do that, 'cause I agree that the only reason they care if a quail dies is that it might cause repercussions that would cause them to lose sales/money. It is up to the individual licensed applicator who uses pesticides to use them properly and according to label, just the same as it is up to the user of a gun, explosive, or truck to use them legally and properly, and not as a tool of human death. However, blaming the manufacturer of Furadan for the eagle's death is no different than blaming the manufacturers of ammonium nitrate for the death of 168 people in the Oklahoma City bombing.

When we blame the object instead of the (mis)user, we go awry.

SRH

Last edited by Stan; 06/22/18 06:53 AM.

May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
+1

Geo. Newbern #516517 06/22/18 10:37 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
fwiw, insect populations seem to be generally lower than ever using the "windshield census" method advocated by some. In 4 trips to Missouri, 2 to central Wisconsin, 1 to central Michigan, and 2 to Kansas, plus lots and lots of miles around Iowa, I've washed my windshield about 3 times. And most of the bugs that are spread-eagle on it, are gnat and mosquito sized critters - useless as bird food for developing pheasants.

My two new hives of honey bees seem to be doing poorly as well.

I don't think anything good is happening out there.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Geo. Newbern #516518 06/22/18 11:05 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,264
Likes: 196
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,264
Likes: 196
BrentD, Your insect observation mirrors my experience in Iowa.

We used to hunt standing corn and often had a difficult time finding downed pheasants hiding in the weeds between cornstocks . Great habitat. Now, we see no weeds in standing corn and almost no pheasants. As for bugs, a longtime farmer told me a few years ago that he had not seen a grasshopper in 4 years. Thank the above situations to Roundup Ready. Great corn, but the habitat and food for birds is poor.

Geo. Newbern #516526 06/22/18 11:58 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Daryl, in addition to "clean rows" in the corn, there are other problems these days when it comes to hunting pheasants in standing corn. Far fewer birds; taller corn; bigger fields. But I too remember hunting standing corn with a lot of foxtail and other weeds. Those were prime spots for roosters in Iowa back in the 50's and 60's, when I was first getting started. But usually, I didn't hunt with big enough groups to spend much time in standing corn anyway. I did a lot of hunting dogless in road ditches and along RR tracks. The latter is technically private property, but everybody did it back then and the railroad companies didn't seem to mind.

Geo. Newbern #516530 06/22/18 01:33 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
Furadan, the pesticide used to kill those bald eagles, is being used to poison wildlife on a vast scale in Africa. A lion kills your cow, just sprinkle a few pennies worth on the carcass and the whole pride dies when they come back the next night. Along with every scavenger - hyena, jackal, eagle, and vulture - that feeds on it. Poisoning has been the primary factor in the collapse of lion populations, and vultures, which were ubiquitous in savanna Africa until twenty years ago, are now nearing extinction. Vultures are also poisoned deliberately by ivory poachers,so that authorities cannot easily find elephant carcasses, and for their bits and pieces for use in magic. Elephants are also targeted by poisoning waterholes. Lake fish are harvested for human consumption with Furadan and other chemicals.

As Brent said, not much good is happening out there.

Geo. Newbern #516533 06/22/18 02:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Love bugs must not be susceptible to any of these bad old pesticides...........their range has increased in the last couple of years to include my area, where before they never existed. Also immune to pesticides here must be house flies, mosquitos, black flies and yellowflies, horseflies, ticks, gnats, the tiny sweat bees, wasps, ants ............ none are decreasing in number here.

But then, maybe I'm hallucinating from all the years of spraying ..........

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #516534 06/22/18 02:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
That pretty much mirrors the insect populations in my neck of the woods too, Stan. I've even noticed that honeybees seem to be bouncing back after several years of relative scarcity.

No doubt that clean farming techniques took a toll on game bird populations, but it hardly explains the situation in northern grouse habitat where herbicides are never used and cover still constantly changes due to forest maturation, and subsequent timbering. And just try to get a Game Commission biologist in my state to admit how they screwed up ringneck pheasant hunting by changing the law to permit shooting hens when populations were already beginning to decline.

Like BrentD, I haven't had to wash my windshield very often this year either. But that's because we're having more days than average with rain this year. Hardly scientific proof of anything except that rain and windshield wipers will remove bug guts.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sadly most farmers have let the chemical companies get them by them by the balls...

High yields along with the ease of farming...compared to years past. A few farmers have woken up but not too many...truth is the only people making a profit off farming are the chemical and genetically altered seed companies.

Geo. Newbern #516590 06/23/18 11:50 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Sidelock
***
OP Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 7,698
Likes: 99
Backbreaking work and heartbreaking weather...Geo

HomelessjOe #516591 06/23/18 12:21 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Sadly most farmers have let the chemical companies get them by them by the balls...

High yields along with the ease of farming...compared to years past. A few farmers have woken up but not too many...truth is the only people making a profit off farming are the chemical and genetically altered seed companies.


Wrong. Corporations have everyone by the balls. The goal is to grow eat up competition paying out least in doing so while maximizing profits. That is why legal emigrants to our shores now come from what our Leader said "shit-hole"? counties. Those people will work hard for same or less than workers born here. Corporate executives, bankers, investors and politicians don't care because their kids don't have to compete with kids of newcomers nor do they have to compete for jobs with the parents. Norwegians aren't going to leave wealthy prosperous country where they work to live to come into a system where people live to work. This is not hard to understand.

Geo. Newbern #516593 06/23/18 12:33 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Geo. Newbern
Backbreaking work and heartbreaking weather...Geo


Farmers aren't the only ones heartbroken about the weather. If things continue as they're we will all want to live in Canada or Alaska!

Geo. Newbern #516594 06/23/18 12:44 PM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Might be on to something, Jag. Itd be funny to see how fast Sunny Boy builds that wall when a horde of Americans starts streaming North!


__________________________
I have dibs on Kings couch!

LGF #516597 06/23/18 12:46 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 704
Likes: 1
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 704
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: LGF
Furadan, the pesticide used to kill those bald eagles, is being used to poison wildlife on a vast scale in Africa. A lion kills your cow, just sprinkle a few pennies worth on the carcass and the whole pride dies when they come back the next night. Along with every scavenger - hyena, jackal, eagle, and vulture - that feeds on it. Poisoning has been the primary factor in the collapse of lion populations, and vultures, which were ubiquitous in savanna Africa until twenty years ago, are now nearing extinction. Vultures are also poisoned deliberately by ivory poachers,so that authorities cannot easily find elephant carcasses, and for their bits and pieces for use in magic. Elephants are also targeted by poisoning waterholes. Lake fish are harvested for human consumption with Furadan and other chemicals.

As Brent said, not much good is happening out there.


New info on this issue (Maryland eagles/furadan) this week on local DC TV stations.

A raccoon was also found dead nearby to the eagles and it was determined that the raccoon was killed by furadan. It is suspected that the eagles had then fed on the dead raccoon. Information that conveniently or not was left out of most of the initial reporting.

My 2 cents. Still a bad thing but I don't believe that anyone was targeting the eagles.

Geo. Newbern #516600 06/23/18 01:16 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
That doesn't make it okay to kill wildlife with poisons that continue to kill anything which feeds on the carcass.

As an illustration of how seriously we treat wildlife crime, one of Bush II's last acts in office was to pardon a guy who killed a bunch of eagles with Furadan he put out to kill other animals.

Jagermeister #516601 06/23/18 01:20 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: Jagermeister
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Sadly most farmers have let the chemical companies get them by them by the balls...

High yields along with the ease of farming...compared to years past. A few farmers have woken up but not too many...truth is the only people making a profit off farming are the chemical and genetically altered seed companies.


Wrong. Corporations have everyone by the balls. The goal is to grow eat up competition paying out least in doing so while maximizing profits. That is why legal emigrants to our shores now come from what our Leader said "shit-hole"? counties. Those people will work hard for same or less than workers born here. Corporate executives, bankers, investors and politicians don't care because their kids don't have to compete with kids of newcomers nor do they have to compete for jobs with the parents. Norwegians aren't going to leave wealthy prosperous country where they work to live to come into a system where people live to work. This is not hard to understand.


It looks as if your talk about leaving this horrible Capitalist Nation is as bogus as your bullshit stories about guns you claimed to own, but merely had on Layaway. When you talk about shopping at Whole Foods, I'd guess it's actually dumpster diving considering the pathetic inability to complete the purchase of some relatively inexpensive guns you've had to put on 24 hour hold or Layaway.

When you emigrated here, did you misunderstand the inscription on the Statue of Liberty to read "Give me your tired, your poor, and your lazy lying bitchers, whiners, and envious complainers..."?


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Geo. Newbern #516602 06/23/18 01:38 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Keith contributes, as usual. No wonder forum participation is down. If he'd just confine himself to gun talk, he'd be tolerable. His diatribes, however, are merely boring. Why do you suppose he just keeps repeating himself? Perhaps it's early-onset dementia.


Bill Ferguson
Geo. Newbern #516604 06/23/18 02:22 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
It might be more interesting if you could explain why you feel the need to tell lies and to denigrate pro-gun politicians Billy. But we all see that your style is to drop a load of Liberal Left DNC propaganda, and then run off like a sissy when you get caught in yet another lie. Got anything positive to contribute about pesticides??? Wait, I know... Trump, Bush, and Cheney are secretly poisoning illegal immigrants and their children in secret Republican Concentration Camps... after waterboarding them first!


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

keith #516608 06/23/18 02:39 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: keith
Originally Posted By: Jagermeister
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
Sadly most farmers have let the chemical companies get them by them by the balls...

High yields along with the ease of farming...compared to years past. A few farmers have woken up but not too many...truth is the only people making a profit off farming are the chemical and genetically altered seed companies.


Wrong. Corporations have everyone by the balls. The goal is to grow eat up competition paying out least in doing so while maximizing profits. That is why legal emigrants to our shores now come from what our Leader said "shit-hole"? counties. Those people will work hard for same or less than workers born here. Corporate executives, bankers, investors and politicians don't care because their kids don't have to compete with kids of newcomers nor do they have to compete for jobs with the parents. Norwegians aren't going to leave wealthy prosperous country where they work to live to come into a system where people live to work. This is not hard to understand.


It looks as if your talk about leaving this horrible Capitalist Nation is as bogus as your bullshit stories about guns you claimed to own, but merely had on Layaway. When you talk about shopping at Whole Foods, I'd guess it's actually dumpster diving considering the pathetic inability to complete the purchase of some relatively inexpensive guns you've had to put on 24 hour hold or Layaway.

When you emigrated here, did you misunderstand the inscription on the Statue of Liberty to read "Give me your tired, your poor, and your lazy lying bitchers, whiners, and envious complainers..."?


It's on my way back home from Wegman's and Cabela's which are next to one another. I get eggs, buckwheat honey, yogurt and Latvian smoked sprats from Whole Foods Market.

keith #516610 06/23/18 02:47 PM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: keith
It might be more interesting if you could explain why you feel the need to tell lies and to denigrate pro-gun politicians Billy. But we all see that your style is to drop a load of Liberal Left DNC propaganda, and then run off like a sissy when you get caught in yet another lie. Got anything positive to contribute about pesticides??? Wait, I know... Trump, Bush, and Cheney are secretly poisoning illegal immigrants and their children in secret Republican Concentration Camps... after waterboarding them first!


Unfortunately pro-gun politicians are very conservative and suck when it comes to social issues. The problem with liberal Democrats is they get funding from entities who are pro gun control. These entities also control mass media which is why we are where we are.
Concentration camps in true sense of the word were invented by the Germans. First ones were opened ca. 1904 in what is today Namibia. One of the most notorious was located on Shark Island.

Jagermeister #516614 06/23/18 03:05 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: Jagermeister

Unfortunately pro-gun politicians are very conservative and suck when it comes to social issues.


You mean social issues such as trying to stop upwards of 30 million illegal immigrants from taking jobs and depressing wages of working class Americans. Or perhaps insisting that the same workers are able to compete on a level playing field against foreign workers and their unfair tariffs and trade restrictions on American products.

Or is your idea of social issues something like Welfare, Food Stamps, taxpayer funded medical care for loafers, open borders, and restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of law abiding citizens?

Tell us again how you voted for Trump. There still may be one or two gullible guys who swallow your bullshit.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

LGF #516633 06/23/18 07:19 PM
Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 704
Likes: 1
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Aug 2011
Posts: 704
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: LGF
That doesn't make it okay to kill wildlife with poisons that continue to kill anything which feeds on the carcass.

As an illustration of how seriously we treat wildlife crime, one of Bush II's last acts in office was to pardon a guy who killed a bunch of eagles with Furadan he put out to kill other animals.


No one said it was OK - I didn't. Where did you get that from?

Last edited by 1cdog; 06/23/18 07:20 PM.
LGF #516649 06/23/18 11:59 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: LGF
That doesn't make it okay to kill wildlife with poisons that continue to kill anything which feeds on the carcass.

As an illustration of how seriously we treat wildlife crime, one of Bush II's last acts in office was to pardon a guy who killed a bunch of eagles with Furadan he put out to kill other animals.


In this Presidential Pardon by George Bush, only 3 eagles were inadvertently poisoned by a farmer who only intended to kill coyotes that threatened the wild turkeys he wished to protect.

There is absolutely no evidence that he ever intended to kill protected birds.

What you will never hear from Liberal Democrat LGF is that Barack Hussein Obama set a record by granting presidential pardons and clemency to 1715 convicts, including 504 that had been sentenced to life prison terms. A number of these felons were drug dealers. These drug dealers did not unintentionally poison a few protected birds. They willfully and knowingly sold poison to the children of the U.S., including large quantities of heroin, methamphetamine, crack, and cocaine.

One can only wonder how many kids died from overdoses due to these illicit drug sales. If you think about it, that's a bit worse than temporarily separating some children from illegal immigrants until it can be determined for certain whether they are actually the real parents, who are seeking asylum by sneaking around legitimate points of entry.

Here's a list of some of these pardons from the Dept. of Justice. It includes an Obama pardon to a felon convicted of a Lacey Act violation for the sale of illegal alligator hides. But again, you won't hear any complaints from LGF about that either. But telling the truth will make me the enemy and destroyer of Doublegunshop forum according to Liberals like LGF, BrentD, and rocky mtn bill.

https://www.justice.gov/pardon/obama-pardons


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Geo. Newbern #516656 06/24/18 07:14 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Some of those inmates have to be released to make space and reduce incarceration costs.

Geo. Newbern #516700 06/24/18 06:09 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Keith knows what these pardoned felons did because he read what they were convicted of. The news is littered with cases where prosecutors wrongly convicted people. Presidential pardons were once carefully vetted. Trump may need to pardon himself as well as many of his right hand gang. It's Mueller time.


Bill Ferguson
Geo. Newbern #516701 06/24/18 06:11 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Jagermeister, that's a ridiculous reason for releasing drug dealers back onto the streets when you claim to be so very concerned about the welfare of children, as Obama and other whining Liberals have been doing in their latest pre-election grandstanding.

Speaking of ridiculous dishonesty, why don't you tell us again how you "kept one very nice SLE double" after several years of admitting you no longer owned any doubles. Do you seriously think anyone will believe that lie if you keep repeating it?


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: rocky mtn bill
....Presidential pardons were once carefully vetted....

There was a time, huh, Bill. Once, the other bill-n-barry started getting creative, and constituents rubber stamped everything they did. Well, they threw the ole rule book out, eh?

Geo. Newbern #516705 06/24/18 06:36 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Yeah, sure Billy. Convicts were once carefully vetted for improper convictions before getting Presidential pardons or commuted sentences. But it appears that Obama's idea of vetting amounted to checking the skin color of the felon he set free.

To carefully review the convictions of over 1700 criminals and spend as much time golfing and vacationing as Obama did is only possible in your defective mind.

According to you Billy, it's been a slam-dunk for Mueller to charge Trump with criminal activity. But your longing and fantasizing is understandable considering your unwavering support for anti-gun Democrats, and your complete disdain for pro-2nd amendment Republicans. It's amusing how you can cling to Russian collusion that hasn't been revealed after over a year of digging and attempted entrapment, yet you are able to totally ignore Hillary's Uranium One deal.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

keith #516749 06/25/18 09:38 AM
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,381
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: keith
Jagermeister, that's a ridiculous reason for releasing drug dealers back onto the streets when you claim to be so very concerned about the welfare of children, as Obama and other whining Liberals have been doing in their latest pre-election grandstanding.

Speaking of ridiculous dishonesty, why don't you tell us again how you "kept one very nice SLE double" after several years of admitting you no longer owned any doubles. Do you seriously think anyone will believe that lie if you keep repeating it?


SLE 28" barrels 1/4-1/2 2&3/4" chambers game scene engraving sg/sfe 6.5lb. Nice. I will be taking that with me when I leave.

Jagermeister #516754 06/25/18 10:05 AM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Originally Posted By: Jagermeister
Originally Posted By: keith
Jagermeister, that's a ridiculous reason for releasing drug dealers back onto the streets when you claim to be so very concerned about the welfare of children, as Obama and other whining Liberals have been doing in their latest pre-election grandstanding.

Speaking of ridiculous dishonesty, why don't you tell us again how you "kept one very nice SLE double" after several years of admitting you no longer owned any doubles. Do you seriously think anyone will believe that lie if you keep repeating it?


SLE 28" barrels 1/4-1/2 2&3/4" chambers game scene engraving sg/sfe 6.5lb. Nice. I will be taking that with me when I leave.


Can you take a gun up to Heaven?

https://youtu.be/CebTrpxiTZg


________________________
You cant take it with you, Jag.

Geo. Newbern #516762 06/25/18 10:39 AM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Keith , neither of us has a clue what Mueller has learned except for the confessions already obtained. As for Craig's comment. I don't think skin color is a valid objection. No sane person believes blacks get the say treatment under the law.


Bill Ferguson
Geo. Newbern #516770 06/25/18 12:09 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
What we do have a clue about Billy, is that Mueller has been investigating alleged Russian collusion far longer than Archibald Cox investigated the Watergate break-in. It seems apparent that this is a very expensive and very partisan political stunt intended to convince idiots like you that Trump is guilty of high crimes. But you have no problem with people in positions of great power in the FBI and Justice Dept. attempting to throw the election to Hillary. You keep predicting that Trump will be in jail or impeached just as you and King Brown inaccurately predicted that he'd lose the election in a landslide.

I see you have no comment on the latest Liberal Left Democrat smear campaign about some kids being temporarily separated from their criminal parents who illegally sneaked into the U.S. Now you Libtards want to cry and have tantrums about that while calling for the abolishing of I.C.E. and a total ban on enforcement and arrests within 100 miles of the border. You all have no problem with U.S. parents who get separated from their children forever when they die from overdoses of tons of drugs that get smuggled into this country from Mexico every year. More people died in the U.S. from drug overdoses last year that the number of U.S. soldiers killed in the entire Viet Nam War, and a lot of those drugs came in over our southern border. But you don't care. You're too busy supporting politicians who would rather gut the 2nd Amendment. I've never seen such hypocritical slimeballs.

I also notice how you bring your Liberal Left political crap into the double shotgun forum, and then when you get uncomfortable being confronted about your bullshit, you think you can find refuge from it in the Custom Rifle Forum. Are you planning to hide behind Steven Hughes again Billy?


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

keith #516784 06/25/18 03:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Isn't it amazing....a post about insecticides and the liberal scum bugs come out of the wood work.

Geo. Newbern #516787 06/25/18 03:51 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,009
Likes: 21
Joe, I totally agree with your pesticide comments. That's probably all we agree on. Keith, nothing you're capable of makes me uncomfortable. It just makes me shake my head. Trump is your guy: stupid, loud-mouthed, abusive, unhinged,and uninformed. Mark Twain had a good phrase for both of you: a quadrilateral, astronomical, incandescent SOB.

Last edited by rocky mtn bill; 06/25/18 03:52 PM. Reason: correction

Bill Ferguson
Geo. Newbern #516790 06/25/18 04:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
LGF Offline
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 598
Likes: 58
Keith, you know f**k all about my politics, and neither drug dealing nor Obama have f**k all to do with a discussion of pesticides. Time to check your meds - your recent posts suggest that you are going off the rails again.

Geo. Newbern #516792 06/25/18 04:30 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693
Likes: 450
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,693
Likes: 450
Insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, large scale, largely hedge rowless farming is here to stay. If we had the 1960 average corn yield of 60-80 buschel to the acre or 35 buschel wheat to the acre we would have $20 corn and $30 wheat. Your $200 a week food bill would zoom to $800-1,000 a week. Organic sounds great, just like green energy, or free love but we cant afford it without a drastically altered lifestyle. And I note people are much in favor of altering other people lifestyle, not their own.

As to poisoning wildlife I am completely against it but I suspect most cases are accidental in this country. Exceptions can occur and should be dealt with. But just as windmills kill flying birds, by accident, I dont expect those wanting to use them to make electricity to stop killing birds or build a 300 in diameter bird cage around the wind mill. . And the solar mirror works, in California vaporized birds caught in their beam when making electricity.

KY Jon #516813 06/25/18 09:37 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Just like liberal thinking has screwed up America Insecticides and herbicides are screwing up the environment...no if and or buts about either.

LGF #516814 06/25/18 09:48 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
That's amusing LGF. All I know about your politics is what you post here on this forum, and none of it has ever been flattering or supportive of Conservatives or Republicans. Remember that it was you who diverted a conversation on pesticides into a diatribe about George Bush pardoning a farmer who inadvertently killed a few eagles when he poisoned some coyotes in a misguided attempt to save a flock of turkeys.

But there's yet another disingenuous sign that someone is a Libtard... they try to deny patently obvious signs of their politics, and they even try to deny their own previous words. Like Jagermeister suddenly telling us that he voted for Trump after months of bashing him, or that he kept one nice SLE double after years of admitting he no longer had any... you're not fooling anyone either.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Geo. Newbern #516825 06/26/18 12:02 AM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44

Geo. Newbern #516828 06/26/18 07:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Bob always has something relevant to say.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


LGF #516829 06/26/18 08:49 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: LGF
....you know f**k all about my politics, and neither drug dealing nor Obama have f**k all to do with a discussion of pesticides. Time to check your meds....

Well, I don't know how relevant ef bombs are, but they do seem to coincide with bash America tendencies.

KY Jon #516842 06/26/18 11:25 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: KY Jon
Insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, large scale, largely hedge rowless farming is here to stay. If we had the 1960 average corn yield of 60-80 buschel to the acre or 35 buschel wheat to the acre we would have $20 corn and $30 wheat. Your $200 a week food bill would zoom to $800-1,000 a week. Organic sounds great, just like green energy, or free love but we cant afford it without a drastically altered lifestyle. And I note people are much in favor of altering other people lifestyle, not their own.



Good points, Jon. For most Iowa farmers, it's a bad year if they don't get 200 bu/acre corn.

Back in the mid-80's, when the Conservation Reserve Program started, I enjoyed hunting pheasants in thousands of acres of grass that had replaced corn and soybean fields in Iowa. But at the same time, because farmers were working less land, they were working it more intensively. Fencerows going away, small wet spots tiled away, little grassy draws plowed up. And as those micro-habitats disappeared, I said to myself: "God help the pheasants if CRP goes away!" Well, there's far less CRP these days, and far fewer pheasants.

A couple months ago, it was the wife's turn behind the wheel as we drove south through central IL. All at once, something odd struck me. I hadn't seen a fence surrounding a field for miles. That's been happening in Iowa too, but the near total absence of fences really caught my attention. Well, they only get in the way if you're a farmer. And if you're not running livestock in the fields to scavenge a little grain after you've harvested, you have no need for them.

Geo. Newbern #516852 06/26/18 03:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 16
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 16
SOO... as a civilization we forge ahead with 'progress' - new scientific discoveries and developments. Then we belatedly discover the law of unintended consequences. By the time this problem has been identified and 'science' has been developed to illustrate the threat, the industry that the new development has spawned is heavily invested in production and distribution and lobby against any change.

This is clearly a formula for assured, long term disaster. I m not a political person - not on purpose, anyway - but this is clearly a political problem, and our political system is broken.


C Man
Life is short
Quit your job.
Turn off the TV.
Go outside and play.
Chukarman #516854 06/26/18 03:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Originally Posted By: Chukarman
SOO... as a civilization we forge ahead with 'progress' - new scientific discoveries and developments. Then we belatedly discover the law of unintended consequences. By the time this problem has been identified and 'science' has been developed to illustrate the threat, the industry that the new development has spawned is heavily invested in production and distribution and lobby against any change.

This is clearly a formula for assured, long term disaster. I m not a political person - not on purpose, anyway - but this is clearly a political problem, and our political system is broken.


That is as succinct an analysis as anyone could offer. And pretty depressing. Garrett Hardin sketched out the general outline of the issues and now we see the inevitable consequences.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Chukarman #516878 06/26/18 09:04 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,017
Likes: 50
Originally Posted By: Chukarman
SOO... as a civilization we forge ahead with 'progress' - new scientific discoveries and developments. Then we belatedly discover the law of unintended consequences. By the time this problem has been identified and 'science' has been developed to illustrate the threat, the industry that the new development has spawned is heavily invested in production and distribution and lobby against any change.

This is clearly a formula for assured, long term disaster. I m not a political person - not on purpose, anyway - but this is clearly a political problem, and our political system is broken.


I regret I must agree the the current political system is operating badly. The system is good, but the people are what is becoming more broken every day. Our society no longer has relatively universal values and demigods from all sides are playing short term selfish games to twist things in order to win. Society is being broken down into tribes. Civility is dead.

Our representative Democracy requires educated thinking citizens who use reason not emotion and believe in the values of our constitution. I am not sure we have enough of those citizens left.

Last edited by old colonel; 06/26/18 09:09 PM. Reason: Additional lines

Michael Dittamo
Topeka, KS
Geo. Newbern #516879 06/26/18 09:34 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
So, what is the answer? Let people starve? Farmers do one thing. They feed and clothe the world. Take enough farmland out of production to put back all the little patches, layout fields and hedgerows and you take millions of acres out of production. Not all those acres are marginal land, either. Most marginal land isn't growing crops, now. A large portion of it is in pine trees. Why?, to make paper for the worlds population. Take all pesticides away and immediately, in one year, there would be world shortages of food, feed stuffs and cotton. So, what is the answer?

Don't answer with your mouths full, now.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #516880 06/26/18 09:40 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Offline
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
A huge portion of the corn we grow goes in our gas tanks, over 1/3 actually. A whole bunch of the land growing corn in the mid-west is only doing so because of the ethanol program and the changes to the CRP program. We were eating just fine 90's, the bird population was a hell of lot better too.


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
A large portion of the south is pine for paper because years back the paper/pulp wood mills got ran out of Canada because of the environmental hazards they caused so they moved south to ruin our part of north America.

Alot of people will defend the use of herbicides...but any farmer knows the concoction of mixed herbicides in the spray tank is mind boggling.

Tell these guys some of the recipes Stan.

I doubt any studies have been done on the combined witches brew required to keep farmers fields weed free.

Geo. Newbern #516883 06/26/18 10:00 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
So, which do you want to give up first, your low priced beef, pork and chicken............or your $2.69/gal. gas. Cut the amount of corn we produce back to what we produced in the '90s, with the increase in population since then, and the increase in the number of cars and trucks, and guess what will happen. Rioting in the streets. It'd make 2nd Amendment rights take a backseat.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Take the government out of farming and I'm betting the farmer will do just fine.

Sad thing is the modern farmer is government/chemical dependant.

Geo. Newbern #516886 06/26/18 10:13 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
I agree, but it will never happen and you darn well know it. Food is too powerful a weapon. Furthermore, this is about pesticides, not government, and how will the consumer fare when food triples in price, and they can't buy cotton clothes because when cotton gets too high the mills all switch to synthetics?

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
HomelessjOe #516888 06/26/18 10:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: HomelessjOe
A large portion of the south is pine for paper because years back the paper/pulp wood mills got ran out of Canada because of the environmental hazards they caused so they moved south to ruin our part of north America.

Alot of people will defend the use of herbicides...but any farmer knows the concoction of mixed herbicides in the spray tank is mind boggling.

Tell these guys some of the recipes Stan.

I doubt any studies have been done on the combined witches brew required to keep farmers fields weed free.


We do not use any tank mix that is not tested and labeled for legal use. We can't afford to, because many of the untried tank mixes are not compatible, or will cause injury to the crop itself. When I do use a tank mix it is one herbicide that is active on broad leaves and another that is active on grasses. The idea that you can pile all kinds of stuff in the tank together is ludicrous. Dummies who try that don't stay in business long.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #516889 06/26/18 10:36 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Offline
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
We exporting huge amounts of oil currently and frack more than enough to meet our needs and that of others. We do not need ethanol to meet fuel needs, We have ethanol because farmers demand it through lobby groups. I'll take more CRP and slightly higher gas prices. The price of Chicken and Beef are of little concern to me as 80% plus of the meat I consume I shoot myself. The ethanol program is huge welfare program and a terrible use of land in addition to putting an incredible amount of nitrates in to the Gulf and increasing the dead zone there. Nothing more than a subsidy for poor environmental practices, not to mention it makes my truck run like crap.


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Stan the few times I've helped a farmer put his herbicides in his spray tank there was a formula supplied by the Co-Op and as I recall it was a mixture of at least 5 or 6 different herbicides some were just a few ounces of this a quart of this and so much of that...a witches brew of chemicals.

I remarked to my buddy that I thought you just sprayed Round Up...he said Round Up by itself is no longer enough.

SKB #516895 06/26/18 11:25 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Big time CRP land use was started about the same time the quail disappeared...

SKB #516896 06/26/18 11:26 PM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: SKB
....I'll take more CRP....

....The ethanol program is huge welfare program....

Just two sentences apart, ain't that the definition of special interest. Bash one, embrace the other, and on top of that, you have no concern for the price of meat at the grocery store? Time to get a diesel.

craigd #516897 06/26/18 11:30 PM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456
Likes: 86
He should have said the entire farm bill is little more than a welfare program for farmers.

Something that puzzles me is that according to goverment studies in places the water table has dropped dramatically....in the next breath the government is subsidizing the farmers wells and irrigation systems in the same areas.

We have stupid leading stupider.

craigd #516904 06/27/18 06:09 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Offline
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
The Ethanol program does nothing to keep the cost of meat down Craig. Yes I have special interests as does everyone else. I like my truck to run well. I do not like paying more for a lower quality product. We currently pay farmers more to till up poor quality ground and call it an attempt at growing corn than we ever did for CRP. The Nitrate run off and erosion is causing problems and not just in the Gulf. I listened to an interesting story on Harvest Public Media last year about some of the efforts in Iowa to restore CRP to key drainage's and other highly erodible areas to combat some of the problems created by working poor ground.


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
SKB #516905 06/27/18 06:33 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: SKB
We exporting huge amounts of oil currently and frack more than enough to meet our needs and that of others. We do not need ethanol to meet fuel needs, We have ethanol because farmers demand it through lobby groups. I'll take more CRP and slightly higher gas prices. The price of Chicken and Beef are of little concern to me as 80% plus of the meat I consume I shoot myself. The ethanol program is huge welfare program and a terrible use of land in addition to putting an incredible amount of nitrates in to the Gulf and increasing the dead zone there. Nothing more than a subsidy for poor environmental practices, not to mention it makes my truck run like crap.


Ethanol is a scam. Another hoax foisted on us by science deniers, like MMGW. Takes more energy to produce a gallon of ethanol than that gallon of ethanol will produce.

Its corporate welfare right down the line, from the farmers who grow the corn to the processors who produce the ethanol. Should be stopped immediately. Too much marginal land has been put under the plough for this scam. Id rather see it back to habitat.

The ethanol program is indefensible from every direction. Interesting to me, given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

Last edited by canvasback; 06/27/18 06:39 AM.

The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
craigd #516906 06/27/18 06:42 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: SKB
....I'll take more CRP....

....The ethanol program is huge welfare program....

Just two sentences apart, ain't that the definition of special interest. Bash one, embrace the other, and on top of that, you have no concern for the price of meat at the grocery store? Time to get a diesel.


The ethanol subsidies drive the cost of other foods up, by reducing acreage under cultivation for everything but corn.


The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
canvasback #516908 06/27/18 07:41 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....The ethanol program is indefensible from every direction. Interesting to me, given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question the validity of pretty much anything 'green and renewable'.

Geo. Newbern #516909 06/27/18 07:56 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Land owners, some of whom are farmers, are now eager to put land back into CRP. The 2018 farm bill proposes 5 million acres additional. The corn market has declined to roughly half of its high point as production outstripped demand. This was as predictable as early spring rain. Maybe some better days for pheasant hunters ahead!

craigd #516911 06/27/18 08:10 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Offline
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
The only thing "green" about ethanol is the money. I question ethanol precisely because of the damage it does to the environment. PC or not, I place a high value on habit and sound environmental policy.


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
craigd #516912 06/27/18 08:24 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....The ethanol program is indefensible from every direction. Interesting to me, given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question the validity of pretty much anything 'green and renewable'.


Craig, it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning and was only valuable to those who profited from it. It's effect on farm land/habitat, on decreasing availability of farm land for other crops, on the heavy use of chemicals to make marginal land productive and every other result were all predictable.

Again, so it's clear.....corporate welfare that is excused by many here while they vilify other types (that at least once had the gloss of reasonableness). Ethanol was the first real junk science used to dupe us out of public money to pad the profits of a relatively small group. Set the stage for the gullible public to buy into MMGW. (Sorry, Climate Change. Hahahaha!)

Last edited by canvasback; 06/27/18 08:25 AM.

The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
canvasback #516913 06/27/18 08:45 AM
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,443
Likes: 204
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question....

....it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning....

If(?) we like our CRP lands, maybe we should sell it better? Since when has good or bad science had anything to do with it? I bet there's a bunch of excellent science that goes into getting reelected as a US rep. for the district compton falls in.

ChiefAmungum #516914 06/27/18 08:46 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Originally Posted By: ChiefAmungum
Land owners, some of whom are farmers, are now eager to put land back into CRP. The 2018 farm bill proposes 5 million acres additional. The corn market has declined to roughly half of its high point as production outstripped demand. This was as predictable as early spring rain. Maybe some better days for pheasant hunters ahead!


I wish that was all that was needed. Sadly, I don't think it is half the battle. Even where we have expanses of excellent habitat, we have fewer birds. And fewer everything else. It is not just habitat that is a problem out there. I'm not even sure habitat is the biggest issue anymore (though it certainly was). Now I think it may be toxicity, or something similar anyway. There just aren't the bugs there used to be even down on the bottom lands, even away from the ag fields. Something ain't right.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


canvasback #516915 06/27/18 08:48 AM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....The ethanol program is indefensible from every direction. Interesting to me, given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question the validity of pretty much anything 'green and renewable'.


Craig, it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning and was only valuable to those who profited from it. It's effect on farm land/habitat, on decreasing availability of farm land for other crops, on the heavy use of chemicals to make marginal land productive and every other result were all predictable.

Again, so it's clear.....corporate welfare that is excused by many here while they vilify other types (that at least once had the gloss of reasonableness). Ethanol was the first real junk science used to dupe us out of public money to pad the profits of a relatively small group. Set the stage for the gullible public to buy into MMGW. (Sorry, Climate Change. Hahahaha!)


There was a hell of a lot of science that screamed that EtOH was a bad thing - but it was all shouted down at the time as being just part of a liberal agenda.

Climate Change is coming boys. And anthropogenic it is. Get used to it.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


craigd #516916 06/27/18 08:52 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question....

....it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning....

If(?) we like our CRP lands, maybe we should sell it better? Since when has good or bad science had anything to do with it? I bet there's a bunch of excellent science that goes into getting reelected as a US rep. for the district compton falls in.


In this discussion, I'm not arguing for or against CRP. I'm simply pointing out the obvious from the beginning bullshit of the ethanol deal. Bad from the start, sold to a gullible public and supported by those who profit from it.

Not doing ethanol is no argument for automatically doing (or not doing) CRP. But while we are at it, lets be clear...CRP is another form of corporate welfare. As hunters we happen to be major beneficiaries of it. Doesn't mean we should be paying farmers for not farming. However, at least with CRP there is not junk science involved and there is are benefits gained that help all of society, not just hunters and farmers.


The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
BrentD, Prof #516917 06/27/18 08:55 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: BrentD
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....The ethanol program is indefensible from every direction. Interesting to me, given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question the validity of pretty much anything 'green and renewable'.


Craig, it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning and was only valuable to those who profited from it. It's effect on farm land/habitat, on decreasing availability of farm land for other crops, on the heavy use of chemicals to make marginal land productive and every other result were all predictable.

Again, so it's clear.....corporate welfare that is excused by many here while they vilify other types (that at least once had the gloss of reasonableness). Ethanol was the first real junk science used to dupe us out of public money to pad the profits of a relatively small group. Set the stage for the gullible public to buy into MMGW. (Sorry, Climate Change. Hahahaha!)


There was a hell of a lot of science that screamed that EtOH was a bad thing - but it was all shouted down at the time as being just part of a liberal agenda.

Climate Change is coming boys. And anthropogenic it is. Get used to it.


Sorry Brent, that's not correct. The left wasn't "shouted down". It was one of the few times the left and a group that pretend they aren't on the left, those who would profit by the program, were in alignment. The same people banging on about Global Warming were the same people advocating Ethanol.


The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
BrentD, Prof #516918 06/27/18 08:56 AM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: BrentD
Originally Posted By: canvasback
Originally Posted By: craigd
Originally Posted By: canvasback
....The ethanol program is indefensible from every direction. Interesting to me, given the avowed conservatism of most of this board, how some favoured welfare programs get defended. Horrible when its a single black mother in Compton......just fine when its the farmer with a half section in corn.

I'm not so sure gasohol can be distinguished from many other unintended consequences. There's a lot of baggage that goes along with being pc unable to question the validity of pretty much anything 'green and renewable'.


Craig, it's easy to distinguish it. It was a scam based on poor science from the beginning and was only valuable to those who profited from it. It's effect on farm land/habitat, on decreasing availability of farm land for other crops, on the heavy use of chemicals to make marginal land productive and every other result were all predictable.

Again, so it's clear.....corporate welfare that is excused by many here while they vilify other types (that at least once had the gloss of reasonableness). Ethanol was the first real junk science used to dupe us out of public money to pad the profits of a relatively small group. Set the stage for the gullible public to buy into MMGW. (Sorry, Climate Change. Hahahaha!)


There was a hell of a lot of science that screamed that EtOH was a bad thing - but it was all shouted down at the time as being just part of a liberal agenda.

Climate Change is coming boys. And anthropogenic it is. Get used to it.


But while we are at it:

[James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer.


James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his high degree of confidence in a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.

With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet.

President Obamas environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansens predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have doneand to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.

Mr. Hansens testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A business as usual, as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and 80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the most plausible, and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.

Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenariosenough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Nio of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansens model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didnt. And it isnt just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.

What about Mr. Hansens other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late 80s and 90s would see greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest. No such spike has been measured in these regions.

As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenlands ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenlands ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenlands surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.

Several more of Mr. Hansens predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didnt happen is long and tedious.

The problem with Mr. Hansens modelsand the U.N.sis that they dont consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.

These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?

On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansens galvanizing testimony, its time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isnt happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.

That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-year...d-up-1529623442 [size:14pt][/size]

Last edited by canvasback; 06/27/18 08:58 AM.

The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
BrentD, Prof #516919 06/27/18 09:03 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Originally Posted By: BrentD
Originally Posted By: ChiefAmungum
Land owners, some of whom are farmers, are now eager to put land back into CRP. The 2018 farm bill proposes 5 million acres additional. The corn market has declined to roughly half of its high point as production outstripped demand. This was as predictable as early spring rain. Maybe some better days for pheasant hunters ahead!


I wish that was all that was needed. Sadly, I don't think it is half the battle. Even where we have expanses of excellent habitat, we have fewer birds. And fewer everything else. It is not just habitat that is a problem out there. I'm not even sure habitat is the biggest issue anymore (though it certainly was). Now I think it may be toxicity, or something similar anyway. There just aren't the bugs there used to be even down on the bottom lands, even away from the ag fields. Something ain't right.
Perhaps you're correct BrentD. I will add this. Prior to the ethanol "boom" and the wide spread removal of mid west CRP to feed it the pheasant hunting was of nearly historic proportions in SW MN. Within two seasons a ghost of its former self.

Geo. Newbern #516923 06/27/18 10:15 AM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44

https://youtu.be/2cjRGee5ipM


__________________________
Just keep movin, man.
https://youtu.be/4t61BmPyWV8

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: Stan
So, what is the answer? Let people starve? Farmers do one thing. They feed and clothe the world. Take enough farmland out of production to put back all the little patches, layout fields and hedgerows and you take millions of acres out of production. Not all those acres are marginal land, either. Most marginal land isn't growing crops, now. A large portion of it is in pine trees. Why?, to make paper for the worlds population. Take all pesticides away and immediately, in one year, there would be world shortages of food, feed stuffs and cotton. So, what is the answer?

Don't answer with your mouths full, now.

SRH

Stan, we took 30+ million acres out of production when the CRP got started. I think the eventual total was right around 35 million acres. And the farmers--at least those in the Midwest--were the beneficiaries. (As were the pheasant hunters, like me.) People tend to forget that although the CRP was presented as a conservation program--and it did take quite a bit of land out of production that probably never should have been growing row crops--an initial goal was to reduce an oversupply of certain commodities (like corn), thereby increasing the price. While paying the farmers to plant grass (or trees) on those acres. Worked like a charm. Part of the problem resulted from that old GA governor, Carter, deciding that the best ways to really get tough with the Russians over their invasion of Afghanistan was to keep our Olympic team home from the Moscow Games, and to embargo grain to the Soviet Union. Whatever else the Russkies were, they were also--at that time--a good cash customer for grain. Take them out of play, commodity prices decline, farmers go broke. Sometimes taking land out of production--as long as the farmer can afford to (he gets a govt check)--isn't a bad idea. Especially considering yield per acre for many crops has increased a whole bunch. We can grow more on less land.

But then corn prices increase; the guys who have land in the CRP see those prices. And, when they're able to do so, they pull out of the CRP and start growing corn. In the case of the Dakotas, in a lot of places where corn had never been grown before. (Mainly because they don't get enough rain year in and year out.) And they make good money in a good year. Or did, until supply once more caught up with demand, prices dropped . . . and now I wonder how many of them wish they'd stayed in the CRP. But with Washington cutting CRP acres, that option isn't anywhere near as widely available as it once was.

So what was a very good short term solution on the part of the government turned out to be not such a good long term solution. Then there's the fact that it costs taxpayers a lot of money when the govt pays farmers to take millions of acres out of row crop production.


Geo. Newbern #516930 06/27/18 12:17 PM
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 2,308
Likes: 44
Larry, et al.

Just hoping that...


________________________
...this is the year.
https://youtu.be/tya5YDOn0Rs

BrentD, Prof #516935 06/27/18 01:31 PM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 11,313
Likes: 378
Originally Posted By: BrentD

There was a hell of a lot of science that screamed that EtOH was a bad thing - but it was all shouted down at the time as being just part of a liberal agenda.


Finally, at long last, BrentD makes a correct observation. Ethanol production really was a Liberal scam... one of many they use to dupe the people.

BrentD also says that:
"Climate Change is coming boys. And anthropogenic it is. Get used to it."

Actually, climate change has been coming and going for billions of years. And it will continue to happen, driven mainly by the sun, perturbations of the tilt of the axis, and volcanic activity, three sources that dwarf mans' influence on climate. But if you simply ignore the information provided by James (canvasback), or things like the following link, you can make it go away by simply mocking the truth:

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/the-myths-of-man-made-climate-change/

I'm surprised BrentD isn't blaming climate change and his observed or imagined lack of bugs on the use of lead ammunition.

Originally Posted By: BrentD
I wish that was all that was needed. Sadly, I don't think it is half the battle. Even where we have expanses of excellent habitat, we have fewer birds. And fewer everything else. It is not just habitat that is a problem out there. I'm not even sure habitat is the biggest issue anymore (though it certainly was). Now I think it may be toxicity, or something similar anyway. There just aren't the bugs there used to be even down on the bottom lands, even away from the ag fields. Something ain't right.


Now just look at all of the great science in BrentD's statement above. "We have fewer birds. And fewer everything else."

Uh, no. That isn't true at all. We have a lot more hawks, which certainly prey on small game birds and animals. We have a lot more coyotes. Ditto for their predations. Geese are multiplying like rats in many areas, reaching nuisance levels. And we all see the expanded range and populations of wild turkeys. I can't blame herbicides, pesticides, and clean farming for the lack of pheasants in my area because a good percentage of the farms are Amish. And they are not using those chemicals and techniques. They're still using moldboard plows and ancient cultivators pulled by draft horses. There are still plenty of fallow overgrown fields, and plenty of fencerows. The topography dictates that we don't have huge contiguous fields of mono-crop production, but rather a checkerboard of corn, soybeans, clover, alfalfa, spelts, oats, potatoes, timber, orchards, brush, weeds, etc. And as I've stated earlier, nobody is spraying either herbicides or pesticides in our forested ruffed grouse habitat, and there is certainly no shortage of insects. Logging of mixed hardwoods is a big industry, so there is always a mixture of mature forest and recently timbered areas in various stages of regeneration.

I don't have the answers, but I'm still pretty sure it was a huge mistake to permit the harvest of hen pheasants when the population was declining. However I am certain that agenda driven Liberals like BrentD don't have the answers either. But that won't stop them from blowing smoke up your ass.


A true sign of mental illness is any gun owner who would vote for an Anti-Gunner like Joe Biden.

Geo. Newbern #516943 06/27/18 06:50 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 16
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 16
How many here are contributing time or dollars to conservation/environmental organizations that are attempting to curb some of the causes of habitat degradation?

Last edited by Chukarman; 06/27/18 07:31 PM.

C Man
Life is short
Quit your job.
Turn off the TV.
Go outside and play.
Chukarman #516949 06/27/18 08:42 PM
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,469
Likes: 386
Originally Posted By: Chukarman
How many here are contributing time or dollars to conservation/environmental organizations that are attempting to curb some of the causes of habitat degradation?


I do. I'm a strong supporter of Delta Waterfowl as well as a partner in a significant project at Delta Marsh on Lake Manitoba to remove the Common Carp from the marsh.

Since the 1950's carp have had a profound and negative impact on the habitat and species range in Delta Marsh. A group that includes Delta Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited and the Manitoba Government approached us (my brothers and me) to be able to build a series of dikes and weirs on our property as we sit on the main entrance to the marsh from the main body of Lake Manitoba. The project couldn't proceed without our cooperation. Our property and our access road/track, some owned and some on long term lease stretch out over about 2 miles from the start of our right of way to our lodge site, heading deeper into the marsh the whole way. That's important for us hunters as motorized vessels are not allowed. Given that rowing is the only way around, the deeper into the marsh you start the better.

The development has caused a major disruption to our property visually. It has required us to have a significant road built, allow heavy equipment across our lands for the build and weekly monitoring the weirs and collection of fish during the summer season. Don't quote me on this but I think they are taking out 40-50,000 pounds of fish each year. Those are significant negatives IOHO, to what was a beautiful, isolated and pristine spot in the marsh. However, the benefits to the marsh are already apparent after just a couple years.

Our lodge has been a hunting spot for over 100 years, built by the Hefflefinger family of Minneapolis. Our neighbors were the family of James Ford Bell, the founder of General Mills and a man who had the foresight to bring Aldo Leopold to the marsh in the 1930's to discuss the decline of waterfowl back then. While DU focused on habitat preservation, Bell sponsored biological research through his Delta Research Station (the forerunner to Delta Waterfowl) in partnership with the biology department of the University of Manitoba. Most of his lands have been turned over to Delta, although the family still has access rights.

Most of the hunting lodges at Delta were built by people who had made their fortune in the grain business. I like to think that because of their natural affinity for the land, nurtured by their profession, that they all took conservation seriously. Hanging on the wall of our lodge, until a catastrophic flood destroyed it in 2011, was a founding membership in Ducks Unlimited from March 1937 in the name of Mr Hefflefinger. That commitment continues to this day.

The pictures and video linked below are from our property.

http://www.ducks.ca/stories/science/cleaning-common-carp/

Chukarman, your post had the tone of a bit of a challenge in it. What are you doing?

Last edited by canvasback; 06/27/18 08:44 PM.

The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
SKB #516953 06/27/18 09:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Originally Posted By: SKB
I'll take more CRP and slightly higher gas prices. The price of Chicken and Beef are of little concern to me as 80% plus of the meat I consume I shoot myself.


The problem with your decision is not that it is wrong for you, it's that you are not speaking for the great unwashed masses. You're privileged, so am I, so are all here who can afford an expensive hobby in order to put $50/lb. + game birds on the table. You do not speak for the inner city people, the elderly on fixed incomes or the struggling single mother who needs food and fuel as cheap as possible. There's nothing wrong with you holding that opinion, Steve, it's just that you can't, and shouldn't, assume that you speak for anybody else.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
canvasback #516954 06/27/18 09:44 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 16
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 16
Originally Posted By: canvasback
...
Chukarman, your post had the tone of a bit of a challenge in it. What are you doing?


I am a life member of California waterfowl and was a longtime board member. I am a contributing member of CalTrout.

I served on the EPA's SF Bay and delta steering committee.

I am active in issues that effect sporting dog owners in my state and in advocating public access to public lands.

Other than that, I just hunt birds, field trial and hunt my setters, and post on web bulletin boards.

Yeah, it was a challenge to everyone that isn't doing SOMETHING.

If you're not part of the solution...

Last edited by Chukarman; 06/27/18 09:46 PM.

C Man
Life is short
Quit your job.
Turn off the TV.
Go outside and play.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Offline
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
Stan,
I fail to see how the Ethanol program feeds the poor. Help me out here, show me how those 5.6 billion bushels of corn that go in the gas tank help the poor. It drives up the cost of gas and mileage decreases. I see this as a net increase in cost to the poor and everyone else. This is for a good year. On a bad year the tax payer funded crop insurance pays the farmer for cultivating poor ground in addition to the poor quality gas.

I grew up on a farm Stan, still own my shares too. Our ground alternatives corn and beans depending on the year. I have nothing against farmers or the poor but firmly believe ethanol is garbage science and a bad idea.

I am all ears though, please tell me how this keeping us all fed....it is not.


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
Chukarman #516959 06/27/18 10:00 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
SKB Offline
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,980
Likes: 396
I just buy hunting licenses in several states each year in pursuit of upland birds. I hunt CO, SD, and NE most years, sometimes ND or MT as well.


http://www.bertramandco.com/
Booking African hunts, firearms import services

Here for the meltdowns
Geo. Newbern #516961 06/27/18 10:22 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Steve, I'm not defending ethanol, or the infrastructure that got it there. My point was, and has been all along, that the so called subsidies to farmers are in reality subsidizing all American households who crave cheap food. When the government won't stay out of our (farmers) business, and uses our produce as a leveraging tool with other nations, such as with unilateral embargoes, the farmers are at the governments' mercy. I would love for them to institute a hands off policy as far as what we plant and what we receive for it. But, the government is much more afraid of the ire of households across the nation because of super-escalated food prices than it is of upset farmers.

If there were no incentives to farmers to influence what we plant, no incentive programs for certain crops, there would be extremely volatile swings in commodity prices. This would result in wild swings in food and fiber prices. For it's entire life, the overwhelming driving purpose of the Farm Bill has been to ensure a stable supply, and relatively cheap prices, of and for food. Their way of ensuring that has been subsidies, in whatever form they assume, from one Farm Bill to the next. This has, unarguably, insured the most stable and inexpensive food supply in the world.

As I said before, people shouldn't bit** about farmers subsidies with their mouth full.

SRH

Last edited by Stan; 06/27/18 10:24 PM.

May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #516980 06/28/18 09:17 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Correct me if I'm wrong, CRP monies go to the land owner, not necessarily the farmer. Much of the ethanol belt is leased land. Most farmers in the upper mid west own but a small amount of the land they actively farm. There are other subsidies that do go directly to the farmer, such as LDP's.

Geo. Newbern #516991 06/28/18 02:49 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
There is no ethanol subsidy, so it doesn't go directly to anyone. Eliminated several years ago. What remains is the Renewable Fuels Mandate, under which the EPA mandates the production of X gallons of blended fuels per year. That total (around 19 billion this year, I believe) is a target for about a 2-3% decrease. That's essentially DC trying to very slowly back away from the Renewable Fuels Mandate. And eventually end it. But it will take time, because doing so all at once would have a catastrophic effect on farmers in corn country.

Geo. Newbern #517016 06/28/18 08:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
I just got in from putting $1 each solar powered lights, and cheap perfume soaked hairpieces on pvc pipe "posts" around a peanut field behind my house, to try to keep the herd of deer from eating them all night every night. The perfume will last until it rains good, then I'll have to do it again. I heard five separate nesting quail calling around that one 32 acre field, all at the same time.

Imagine that...............deer to the point of being a nuisance, and quail, where I have sprayed pesticides every spring and summer, including this one, for the past 45 years. I must be hallucinating.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Geo. Newbern #517017 06/28/18 08:05 PM
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,670
Likes: 372
Larry there is a subsidy somewhere in the chain because we are not paying the full price for it at the pumps. It may be just the taxes are reduced for it, but that is why EtOH gas is cheaper at the pump than straight gas in Iowa, but it is more expensive than straight gas in noncorn states.


_________
BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan)

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]


Geo. Newbern #517022 06/28/18 08:46 PM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 459
Likes: 53
Straight unleaded is .30 MORE than 10% ethanol here, NC/SC. There is some corn production here. Nothing on the scale of the mid west. I use it in small engines and my old Jeep.

Geo. Newbern #517033 06/28/18 11:02 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
I run 90 octane non-ethanol in all my small engines and my old Jeep, too. Anything that is carbureted. But, I paid $3.09 for it, last time I bought a 6 gal. jug.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: Stan


Imagine that...............deer to the point of being a nuisance, and quail, where I have sprayed pesticides every spring and summer, including this one, for the past 45 years. I must be hallucinating.

SRH


Stan, those obviously must be hippy quail. Getting high on those pesticides.

Geo. Newbern #517103 06/29/18 04:36 PM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 13,127
Likes: 1127
They do sing a lot.................and there's no song sweeter to my ears.

SRH


May God bless America and those who defend her.
BrentD, Prof #517140 06/30/18 08:00 AM
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,372
Likes: 103
Originally Posted By: BrentD
Larry there is a subsidy somewhere in the chain because we are not paying the full price for it at the pumps. It may be just the taxes are reduced for it, but that is why EtOH gas is cheaper at the pump than straight gas in Iowa, but it is more expensive than straight gas in noncorn states.


Brent, just a guess here, but I'm thinking it's probably cheaper in corn states like Iowa because that's where most ethanol is produced. It's also cheaper in WI, where--interestingly enough, considering that Iowa grows way more corn--you have to look for a station that sells regular unleaded without ethanol. (Even harder to find non-ethanol regular in MN.) At a lot of stations in WI, your choice is either E-10 or else the high octane non-ethanol stuff, which is maybe 50 cents/gal more expensive. In Iowa, it's always been the case that you could get either E-10 or regular no ethanol unleaded at virtually every station in the state, and minimal difference in price.

Could be there's some sort of state subsidy . . . but the federal subsidy for ethanol went away several years ago.

Page 1 of 17 1 2 3 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: 0.735s Queries: 351 (0.644s) Memory: 1.8858 MB (Peak: 3.7737 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 18:14:53 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS