The M-44 is a type of highly toxic poison bomb that our government uses to kill animals at taxpayer expense. Why do they do this? To help corporations, of course. So how many animals does our wonderful govt kill, you might ask?
The M-44 is a type of highly toxic poison bomb that our government uses to kill animals at taxpayer expense. Why do they do this? To help corporations, of course. So how many animals does our wonderful govt kill, you might ask?
Per your article: the govt agency that manages land twice the size of California has stopped using it. So what’s the issue?
Yes, I realize that some states and smaller agencies still use it but the article you posted shows that a large agency that manages a very large bit of land stopped using it. And it seems as if the push it phase it out in general due to its dangerous nature.
So why not a thread title praising the govt for making a massive step in wildlife protection rather than your chosen sarcastic title and thread substance completely ignoring the positive aspect of this change and article?
The M-44 is a type of highly toxic poison bomb that our government uses to kill animals at taxpayer expense. Why do they do this? To help corporations, of course. So how many animals does our wonderful govt kill, you might ask?
“Between 2000-2016, Wildlife Services reported 246,985 animals killed by M-44s, including at least 1,182 dogs. From 2014-2022, the agency said M-44s intentionally killed 88,000 animals and unintentionally killed more than 2,000 animals.” https://apnews.com/...9b26d1b0751f0cc0f42cPer your article: the govt agency that manages land twice the size of California has stopped using it. So what’s the issue?
Yes, I realize that some states and smaller agencies still use it but the article you posted shows that a large agency that manages a very large bit of land stopped using it. And it seems as if the push it phase it out in general due to its dangerous nature.
So why not a thread title praising the govt for making a massive step in wildlife protection rather than your chosen sarcastic title and thread substance completely ignoring the positive aspect of this change and article?
People have been trying to get government agencies to stop using these insane poison bomb devices for longer than I have been alive. Yes, stopping of the use of them is a positive development. But don’t you worry your little soul, US govt and state agencies are not remotely done killing thousands of wild animals every single year for no f*cking reason. Leg hold traps and snares are still full speed ahead.
Government and individuals use the same methods for wolves as well. Plus shooting with night vision goggles and from motorized ATVs and snow machines. And throwing dynamite sticks in dens to kill families with pups.
Humans are wonderful like that. And we are such great “sportsmen.”
Are you of the opinion that no wild animals should be killed by government?
I am of the opinion that the simply insane rates of unrestrained and barbaric killing are wrong, needless, harmful, and here’s the clincher will end up killing us in the end. We are just too f*cking stupid to see it.
Are you of the opinion that no wild animals should be killed by government?
I am of the opinion that the simply insane rates of unrestrained and barbaric killing are wrong, needless, harmful, and here’s the clincher will end up killing us in the end. We are just too f*cking stupid to see it.
In your opinion, What is an acceptable number of wild animals the government can kill?
Are you of the opinion that no wild animals should be killed by government?
I am of the opinion that the simply insane rates of unrestrained and barbaric killing are wrong, needless, harmful, and here’s the clincher will end up killing us in the end. We are just too f*cking stupid to see it.
In your opinion, What is an acceptable number of wild animals the government can kill?
What would be the purpose of this killing of wild animals? What would be the method?
The M-44 is a type of highly toxic poison bomb that our government uses to kill animals at taxpayer expense. Why do they do this? To help corporations, of course. So how many animals does our wonderful govt kill, you might ask?
“Between 2000-2016, Wildlife Services reported 246,985 animals killed by M-44s, including at least 1,182 dogs. From 2014-2022, the agency said M-44s intentionally killed 88,000 animals and unintentionally killed more than 2,000 animals.” https://apnews.com/...9b26d1b0751f0cc0f42cPer your article: the govt agency that manages land twice the size of California has stopped using it. So what’s the issue?
Yes, I realize that some states and smaller agencies still use it but the article you posted shows that a large agency that manages a very large bit of land stopped using it. And it seems as if the push it phase it out in general due to its dangerous nature.
So why not a thread title praising the govt for making a massive step in wildlife protection rather than your chosen sarcastic title and thread substance completely ignoring the positive aspect of this change and article?
People have been trying to get government agencies to stop using these insane poison bomb devices for longer than I have been alive. Yes, stopping of the use of them is a positive development. But don’t you worry your little soul, US govt and state agencies are not remotely done killing thousands of wild animals every single year for no f*cking reason. Leg hold traps and snares are still full speed ahead.
Avoiding answering the actual questions I asked or addressed what was said. Par for the course.
Are you of the opinion that no wild animals should be killed by government?
I am of the opinion that the simply insane rates of unrestrained and barbaric killing are wrong, needless, harmful, and here’s the clincher will end up killing us in the end. We are just too f*cking stupid to see it.
In your opinion, What is an acceptable number of wild animals the government can kill?
What would be the purpose of this killing of wild animals? What would be the method?
What is your opinion?
Purpose in the case of wolves is to stop them from eating cattle and sheep and hurting the farmers income and livelihood. Method is gun shot.
You would not have a problem with this or is this still off limits to you?
What would the purpose be that you could see for killing wild animals, and what method would you find acceptable?
And, wow, if being disturbed by utter savagery and unrestrained cruelty is now some kind of “virtue”, holy toledo, we are massively, massively f*cked.
If one is a health care professional, is caring for your patients some kind of “virtue”?? I would just call it doing one’s job with decency.
DSW: sarcastic title about people loving animals and talks about how horrific these chemical bombs are. But then posts an article showing the govt recognizing how bad they are and is making massive strides to stop using them.
Instead of offering praise you dismiss the good nature of the decision and choose to continue to badmouth the agency.
Me: why did you feel the need to warp the information in the article and point out how bad the govt is for using these when the article you offered showed them addressing the issue and making progressive moves to stop using chemical bombs?
DSW: Oh yea you’re right but other stuff!
So no. You didn’t answer my question as to why you ignored the crux of the article that actually contradicts your anger and instead decided to twist the info to fit your narrative.
Maybe don’t use an article that contradicts your post. You would have been better off just not posting at all if you were going to ignore that the content of the article supports what you ultimately want.
In all honesty, these incremental, tiny, miniscule improvements in the reduction in our collective unbridled savagery do very little for me. And it brings out my sarcasm. Maybe sarcasm is just my flawed way of avoiding facing soul-crushing pain.
In all honesty, these incremental, tiny, miniscule improvements in the reduction in our collective unbridled savagery do very little for me. And it brings out my sarcasm. Maybe sarcasm is just my flawed way of avoiding facing soul-crushing pain.
No, you’re thresholds for what are acceptable and unacceptable are unreasonable.
For instance, the article you provided says the agency that covers land area twice the size of one of our largest states has stopped using these chemical bombs…and you view that as a “tiny, minuscule improvement.â€
THAT is your issue. You are so addicted to the rage and salivate at the opportunity to point out your agendas (as beneficial or not as they are).
Your own penchant for doing that blinds your judgement. It’s ironic bc colloquially we call that “being trigger happy.â€
I know this is true because it is not the first time you have spouted off only to walk yourself back with a “point taken†after people have called you out. I have been one of those people multiple times.
In all honesty, these incremental, tiny, miniscule improvements in the reduction in our collective unbridled savagery do very little for me. And it brings out my sarcasm. Maybe sarcasm is just my flawed way of avoiding facing soul-crushing pain.
No, you’re thresholds for what are acceptable and unacceptable are unreasonable.
For instance, the article you provided says the agency that covers land area twice the size of one of our largest states has stopped using these chemical bombs…and you view that as a “tiny, minuscule improvement.â€
THAT is your issue. You are so addicted to the rage and salivate at the opportunity to point out your agendas (as beneficial or not as they are).
Your own penchant for doing that blinds your judgement. It’s ironic bc colloquially we call that “being trigger happy.â€
I know this is true because it is not the first time you have spouted off only to walk yourself back with a “point taken†after people have called you out. I have been one of those people multiple times.
In all honesty, these incremental, tiny, miniscule improvements in the reduction in our collective unbridled savagery do very little for me. And it brings out my idiotic hyperbole. Maybe idiotic hyperbole is just my flawed way of avoiding facing soul-crushing pain.
Are you of the opinion that no wild animals should be killed by government?I am of the opinion that the simply insane rates of unrestrained and barbaric killing are wrong, needless, harmful, and here’s the clincher will end up killing us in the end. We are just too f*cking stupid to see it.
In your opinion, What is an acceptable number of wild animals the government can kill?What would be the purpose of this killing of wild animals? What would be the method?
What is your opinion?Purpose in the case of wolves is to stop them from eating cattle and sheep and hurting the farmers income and livelihood. Method is gun shot. You would not have a problem with this or is this still off limits to you?
If farmers are ranching on public land at taxpayer expense, that is a voluntary risk that they take. However, if they are ranching on private land and have a legitimate wolf kill, it is smarter for our society to compensate for the rancher’s loss instead of kill a very, very, very rare predator. One which we humans have already decimated.
What would the purpose be that you could see for killing wild animals.
There could be several, but direct self defense is a purpose that I can see.
Are you of the opinion that no wild animals should be killed by government?I am of the opinion that the simply insane rates of unrestrained and barbaric killing are wrong, needless, harmful, and here’s the clincher will end up killing us in the end. We are just too f*cking stupid to see it.
In your opinion, What is an acceptable number of wild animals the government can kill?What would be the purpose of this killing of wild animals? What would be the method?
What is your opinion?Purpose in the case of wolves is to stop them from eating cattle and sheep and hurting the farmers income and livelihood. Method is gun shot. You would not have a problem with this or is this still off limits to you?
If farmers are ranching on public land at taxpayer expense, that is a voluntary risk that they take. However, if they are ranching on private land and have a legitimate wolf kill, it is smarter for our society to compensate for the rancher’s loss instead of kill a very, very, very rare predator. One which we humans have already decimated.
What would the purpose be that you could see for killing wild animals.
There could be several, but direct self defense is a purpose that I can see.
Do you feel that part of managing our nations parks and wildlife includes controlling animal populations to a healthy and sustainable level?
If so, that means killing/harvesting of certain animals in order to maintain a healthy echo system is necessary.
I do not support gassing and poisoning of animals as a means to do this. However the use of guns are a pretty humane way in general to accomplish this, generally speaking.
I felt a little bait and switch with the title. I was going to respond with “because it’s awesome” but that isn’t the post.
I have chickens. Predators at times, attack and kill them. I also have pets. I have eliminated threats to them before. Usually they aren’t just predators, they are nuisance animals that act in fearless ways towards pets and children.
Killing animals for no reason is no good. Doing it cruelly is unnecessary.
