IFish Fishing Forum banner

181 - 200 of 209 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
454 Posts
How do you cook ‘em? I always figured a little butter and capers wrapped tight in aluminum foil, baked at 350 for about an hour.

Fall off the bone tender I bet.
I got an infraction here for posting about legally killing feral cats...fwiw.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
I got an infraction here for posting about legally killing feral cats...fwiw.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk
That’s odd. Feral cats are so very damaging to the environment. One of the few predators that kill for the sake of killing and yes, I know, humans share the same trait.

Strange that you’d get dinged for that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts

Booming feral cat populations are a disaster, science says. Here are 15 reasons why.

Feral, free-roaming cats have been documented by dozens of studies to be indiscriminate killers of wildlife and the cause of at least 63 species extinctions, according to a 2016 analysis of invasive species impacts. But while the evidence of their hunting prowess is overwhelming, there is little proof that cats are effective at controlling urban rats, which studies have shown are not their primary prey.


1. Feral cats are ecological serial killers
In our current age, termed the 6th mass extinction by ecologists, we are losing biodiversity faster than ever – between 10 and 100 times faster, scientists estimate. Our support of feral cats, tenacious or tacit, might be among the worst ways humans contribute to this problem. A 2013 study by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute found that free-ranging, domestic cats (mostly unowned) are the single largest human-caused threat to wildlife. A 2011 review of wildlife crises on islands determined that cats helped cause the decline or extinction of 123 species of songbirds, parrots, seabirds and penguins; 25 species of reptiles and 27 species of mammals, including a lemur and a bat. That hurts biodiversity, which has been shown to play a role in food security, the control of infectious disease and successful adaptation to climate change.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,436 Posts
Back to lead and Condors! It's my understanding that DDT, was the cause for the demise of California Condors! Not lead. The lead studies came after the Condor was listed and endangered! This is how I remember this situation. Soft eggs couldn't make it to hatch!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Back to lead and Condors! It's my understanding that DDT, was the cause for the demise of California Condors! Not lead. The lead studies came after the Condor was listed and endangered! This is how I remember this situation. Soft eggs couldn't make it to hatch!
You're going to screw up the narrative, quit it.

Sent from my SM-G986U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,521 Posts
Back to lead and Condors! It's my understanding that DDT, was the cause for the demise of California Condors! Not lead. The lead studies came after the Condor was listed and endangered! This is how I remember this situation. Soft eggs couldn't make it to hatch!
Strychnine killed a lot of condors as well...

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
I have to say, from here in Oregon, I don’t give two hoots about the California Condor.

Species go extinct all the time.

Adapt or die.

954671
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
As much as I care for envirinment, there's few things which always bothered me. Double standard is the one which most. Agreed lead is bad...obviously. But than the same group which focus on that, allows adding lead to our drinking water. Now there explanation is that its in safe limit. What's a safe limit??? Long run repercussions are not something one can verify so quickly. Lead acid batteries.....they say they are dumped and desposed in harmless manner but we all know how private contracted company do things. Guns, bullets, fish sinkers should be the last on state/fed/envronmentally motivated foks list. I use to have same thinking about lead and still do but looking at what priortises first, has my view modified. If its for stroking ego or to have a last word, there will be million arguements in support and against but if we want to preserve the planet...whether to hunt...or save animals or freakin hug a tree....there are far far far more other more harmful sources of lead poisoning that should be stopped ....not guns and ammo...thats like not even a speck of dust in the universe. It still bothers me that lead is added to our water without us knowing and giving a proper explanation.....and then we say there's democracy...democracy my a$$

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
I have to say, from here in Oregon, I don’t give two hoots about the California Condor.

Species go extinct all the time.

Adapt or die.

View attachment 954671
Well, I guess people that can't adapt to lead-free bullets will go the way of the Dodo and the Passenger Pigeon.

(By the way, That's not a real quote by Charles Darwin. It's a bad paraphrasing of Darwin, with emphasis on bad.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
How do the anti-hunting groups feel about banning lead bullets?

That‘s probably all I need to know.
Some need to know more than what somebody else might feel about something. It may be hard for you to understand, but some people actually need to look at the evidence.,
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
As much as I care for envirinment, there's few things which always bothered me. Double standard is the one which most. Agreed lead is bad...obviously. But than the same group which focus on that, allows adding lead to our drinking water. Now there explanation is that its in safe limit. What's a safe limit??? Long run repercussions are not something one can verify so quickly. Lead acid batteries.....they say they are dumped and desposed in harmless manner but we all know how private contracted company do things. Guns, bullets, fish sinkers should be the last on state/fed/envronmentally motivated foks list. I use to have same thinking about lead and still do but looking at what priortises first, has my view modified. If its for stroking ego or to have a last word, there will be million arguements in support and against but if we want to preserve the planet...whether to hunt...or save animals or freakin hug a tree....there are far far far more other more harmful sources of lead poisoning that should be stopped ....not guns and ammo...thats like not even a speck of dust in the universe. It still bothers me that lead is added to our water without us knowing and giving a proper explanation.....and then we say there's democracy...democracy my a$$

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

I don't see a double standard. There are regulations on lead or potable water. Only very small traces of lead are allowed to be used in anything in a domestic potable plumbing that touches the water.. There are limits to the amount of lead that can be measured in the water before action need to be taken by law. Lead acid batteries are considered hazardous waste and most jurisdictions require their proper disposal as such (if everybody follows the rules is a different matter) . Lead use has been regulated in gasoline, paint, toys, wine bottle caps, food, items that contact food, cosmetics, etc. Wait, on second thought, maybe it is a double standard that hunters and fishermen think our lead use is off limits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,578 Posts
Some need to know more than what somebody else might feel about something. It may be hard for you to understand, but some people actually need to look at the evidence.,
The problem is with the quality of the evidence. Science, today, simply demonstrates whatever the person / entity paying for the science wants proven. Since the science was paid for by those who want to rationalize restriction of lead, that's what it found. It was not impartial. It would be delusion to think it was. When I see something that is truly from a neutral and financially unbiased source, I'll pay more attention to it. 'til then, I'll give it the raspberry it deserves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,668 Posts
Some need to know more than what somebody else might feel about something. It may be hard for you to understand, but some people actually need to look at the evidence.,
Some people only understand when the “evidence” agrees with their agenda.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whitey375

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,645 Posts
I don't see a double standard. There are regulations on lead or potable water. Only very small traces of lead are allowed to be used in anything in a domestic potable plumbing that touches the water.. There are limits to the amount of lead that can be measured in the water before action need to be taken by law. Lead acid batteries are considered hazardous waste and most jurisdictions require their proper disposal as such (if everybody follows the rules is a different matter) . Lead use has been regulated in gasoline, paint, toys, wine bottle caps, food, items that contact food, cosmetics, etc. Wait, on second thought, maybe it is a double standard that hunters and fishermen think our lead use is off limits.
Did you agreed to adding lead to our water?? I definitely wasn't. A closed door decision which suddenly put out. I dont mind to be wrong since it benefits all.
And you firmly believe that the 3rd party contracted to do the job..specially pruvate will do their job honestly?? How many times ypu hear that garbage disposal was done behind the public eye nassively in rivers or oceans. I choose to live in real world and not trust the info when it comes to choosing of my politicam inclination..abd more practical about it. We finget point at feds for so and so amount of nuclear waste dumped in eastern OR/ WA but for arguement sake we try to mend facts in our own ways. I still say I'm against lead but then ask our 'rulers' to put the fact like fact not in a rolly polly way where everyone choose to put the facrs with their proven study. Out of all I still say hunters lead is the least of concern as compared to other sources..1000001%. I don't give a rats tail to political inclination. Mending the fact with studies is getting old.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
You guys got some
The problem is with the quality of the evidence. Science, today, simply demonstrates whatever the person / entity paying for the science wants proven. Since the science was paid for by those who want to rationalize restriction of lead, that's what it found. It was not impartial. It would be delusion to think it was. When I see something that is truly from a neutral and financially unbiased source, I'll pay more attention to it. 'til then, I'll give it the raspberry it deserves.
Some people only understand when the “evidence” agrees with their agenda.
Do you guys have anything to offer besides ignorantly attacking the motives of people?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,975 Posts
Did you agreed to adding lead to our water?? I definitely wasn't. A closed door decision which suddenly put out. I dont mind to be wrong since it benefits all.
And you firmly believe that the 3rd party contracted to do the job..specially pruvate will do their job honestly?? How many times ypu hear that garbage disposal was done behind the public eye nassively in rivers or oceans. I choose to live in real world and not trust the info when it comes to choosing of my politicam inclination..abd more practical about it. We finget point at feds for so and so amount of nuclear waste dumped in eastern OR/ WA but for arguement sake we try to mend facts in our own ways. I still say I'm against lead but then ask our 'rulers' to put the fact like fact not in a rolly polly way where everyone choose to put the facrs with their proven study. Out of all I still say hunters lead is the least of concern as compared to other sources..1000001%. I don't give a rats tail to political inclination. Mending the fact with studies is getting old.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
Who's adding lead to my water?
 
181 - 200 of 209 Posts
Top