Some time to kill today.

[Ken M]

On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas

Which do you think is the trashiest?

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[[email protected]]

Ken M wrote:
> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
> bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>
> Which do you think is the trashiest?

Too many to choose from but what appears to be an inflated Rudolph is
......

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

[Fred]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Ken M wrote:
>> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
>> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
>> bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
>> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>>
>> Which do you think is the trashiest?
>
> Too many to choose from but what appears to be an inflated Rudolph is
> .....
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>

All the inflated stuff. Bonus points for the overall green grass suburbia
thing.

[David L. Johnson]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:27:31 -0500, Ken M wrote:

> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
> bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>
> Which do you think is the trashiest?

I think you should move to another part of town...

--

David L. Johnson

__o | A mathematician is a machine for turning coffee into theorems.
_`\(,_ | -- Paul Erdos
(_)/ (_) |

[Veloise]

Ken M wrote:
....
> Which do you think is the trashiest?

I think you should move to someplace where it gets all Currier & Ives
for December. Palm trees?!? C'mon!

Maybe this week I'll get over to a home store and snag a pic of those
large yard inflatables in repose. Colorful deflated nylon figures--now
that's trashy!

--Karen D.

[Ken M]

wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
>
>>On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
>>decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
>>bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
>>http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>>
>>Which do you think is the trashiest?
>
>
> Too many to choose from but what appears to be an inflated Rudolph is
> .....
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
>
I was thinking the "family" of inflatable penguins(sp).

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

David L. Johnson wrote:

> I think you should move to another part of town...
>
I think I need to move to another town.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Ken M]

Veloise wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
> ...
>
>>Which do you think is the trashiest?
>
>
> I think you should move to someplace where it gets all Currier & Ives
> for December. Palm trees?!? C'mon!
>
> Maybe this week I'll get over to a home store and snag a pic of those
> large yard inflatables in repose. Colorful deflated nylon figures--now
> that's trashy!
>
> --Karen D.
>
Well I live in the tropics, so the palm tree is the tree of choice for
decorating.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[dgk]

On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:27:31 -0500, Ken M > wrote:

>On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
>decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
>bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
>http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>
>Which do you think is the trashiest?
>
>Ken

I think the presents under the giant pineapple are cute.

[Ken M]

dgk wrote:

>
>
> I think the presents under the giant pineapple are cute.

The "giant pineapple", well it's better than the inflatable reindeer.

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[Paul Hobson]

catzz66 wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
>
>> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
>> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
>> bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
>> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>>
>> Which do you think is the trashiest?
>>
>> Ken
>
>
>
> I saw one of those wire reindeer with lights. However it was hung up by
> the hind legs like a deer that had been shot in a deer hunt. Tacky!

oh god. which part of georgia were you in?

\\paul

[catzz66]

Ken M wrote:
> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on the
> bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>
> Which do you think is the trashiest?
>
> Ken


I saw one of those wire reindeer with lights. However it was hung up by
the hind legs like a deer that had been shot in a deer hunt. Tacky!

[Ken M]

Paul Hobson wrote:

>> I saw one of those wire reindeer with lights. However it was hung up
>> by the hind legs like a deer that had been shot in a deer hunt. Tacky!
>
>
> oh god. which part of georgia were you in?
>
> \\paul

Actually it could have very well been anywhere south of Maryland or so,
below that all the natives are pretty much the same as a Georgian. ;)

Ken
--
Nothing compares to the simple pleasure of a bike ride. ~John F. Kennedy

[catzz66]

Ken M wrote:
> Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>>> I saw one of those wire reindeer with lights. However it was hung up
>>> by the hind legs like a deer that had been shot in a deer hunt. Tacky!
>>
>>
>>
>> oh god. which part of georgia were you in?
>>
>> \\paul
>
>
> Actually it could have very well been anywhere south of Maryland or so,
> below that all the natives are pretty much the same as a Georgian. ;)
>
> Ken


It was in a nice neighborhood in big town in Texas. I assume it was
probably somebody's idea of a joke.

[Eric Babula]

catzz66 > wrote in
:

> Ken M wrote:
>> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
>> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on
>> the bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
>> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>>
>> Which do you think is the trashiest?
>>
>> Ken
>
>
> I saw one of those wire reindeer with lights. However it was hung
> up by the hind legs like a deer that had been shot in a deer hunt.
> Tacky!
>

You mean, this one???

http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_dec2005/RedneckReindeer.htm

Funny!

--
Eric Babula
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA

[Buck]

catzz66 wrote:
>
> It was in a nice neighborhood in big town in Texas. I assume it was
> probably somebody's idea of a joke.

Now that I've lived in both Texas and Arkansas, I believe that hunting
is more important to the people of Arkansas than the people of Texas. I
have to tell students that hunting is not a valid excuse for missing
class and that anyone wearing offensive smells to the classroom will be
asked to leave. I have had students falling asleep in class because
they were in their deer stand at 5:00am and only left because they had
to come to my class.

The roads along my daily commute are littered with deer carcasses.
There are five of them so far this year. Six if you count the doe that
was killed by a car this morning. The others are stripped of meat and
skin and dumped in the ditch. This is something I NEVER saw in either
Texas or Oklahoma.

As for the decorations, there are a fair number of light displays along
my daily ride. Maybe the people of r.b.m. consider it trashy, but I
think it's nice that they put forth the effort to have some fun. It is
a little audacious to have several hundred dollars worth of lights on a
mobile home. But it's only trashy when the lights are still up in
March.

-Buck

[Ken M]

Buck wrote:

> Now that I've lived in both Texas and Arkansas, I believe that hunting
> is more important to the people of Arkansas than the people of Texas. I
> have to tell students that hunting is not a valid excuse for missing
> class and that anyone wearing offensive smells to the classroom will be
> asked to leave. I have had students falling asleep in class because
> they were in their deer stand at 5:00am and only left because they had
> to come to my class.
>
Hunting is un-necessary period. People can live on a vegetable diet.

> The roads along my daily commute are littered with deer carcasses.
> There are five of them so far this year. Six if you count the doe that
> was killed by a car this morning. The others are stripped of meat and
> skin and dumped in the ditch. This is something I NEVER saw in either
> Texas or Oklahoma.
>
That sounds pretty wasteful.

> As for the decorations, there are a fair number of light displays along
> my daily ride. Maybe the people of r.b.m. consider it trashy, but I
> think it's nice that they put forth the effort to have some fun. It is
> a little audacious to have several hundred dollars worth of lights on a
> mobile home. But it's only trashy when the lights are still up in
> March.
>
They only ones I think are really trashy are the inflatables.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Fred]

"Eric Babula" > wrote in message
1...
> catzz66 > wrote in
> :
>
>> Ken M wrote:
>>> On my day off, so I went on a hunt for trashy looking Christmas
>>> decorations. I took my 12 mile route through my part of town, on
>>> the bike, with the digital camera. Here is what I saw:
>>> http://kcm-home.tripod.com/christmas
>>>
>>> Which do you think is the trashiest?
>>>
>>> Ken
>>
>>
>> I saw one of those wire reindeer with lights. However it was hung
>> up by the hind legs like a deer that had been shot in a deer hunt.
>> Tacky!
>>
>
> You mean, this one???
>
> http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_dec2005/RedneckReindeer.htm
>
> Funny!
>
> --
> Eric Babula
> Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA
>
>

Your funny is my sick. How do people miss the beauty in reverence?

[Buck]

Ken M wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>
> > Now that I've lived in both Texas and Arkansas, I believe that hunting
> > is more important to the people of Arkansas than the people of Texas. I
> > have to tell students that hunting is not a valid excuse for missing
> > class and that anyone wearing offensive smells to the classroom will be
> > asked to leave. I have had students falling asleep in class because
> > they were in their deer stand at 5:00am and only left because they had
> > to come to my class.
> >
> Hunting is un-necessary period. People can live on a vegetable diet.

While that may be true in your view of the world, there are a great
number of people who derive satisfaction from hunting and use all of
the meat. I suffered as a vegetarian for two years before deciding that
eating meat was a healthier way to live.

I would ask you to consider the current deer population problems and
potential solutions before you start lambasting hunters or omnivores in
general.

http://www.txtwriter.com/onscience/Articles/deerpops.html

-Buck

[Alex Potter]

Buck wrote on Wednesday 14 December 2005 14:06:

> I suffered as a vegetarian for two years before deciding that
> eating meat was a healthier way to live.

I'd love to know in what way did you suffer? I find that I can survive
quite happily without meat, sometimes for years at a time.
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

[Ken M]

Buck wrote:


> eating meat was a healthier way to live.
>
Most experts disagree with this, most will say that consuming less
animal products is a healthier lifestyle.

> I would ask you to consider the current deer population problems and
> potential solutions before you start lambasting hunters or omnivores in
> general.
>
The population of any animal is limited by that animals natural predators.

Ken

--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Ken M]

Alex Potter wrote:

> I'd love to know in what way did you suffer? I find that I can survive
> quite happily without meat, sometimes for years at a time.

I agree with you there, I have gone for periods of two to three years
without meat.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Bill Sornson]

Ken M wrote:
> Alex Potter wrote:
>
>> I'd love to know in what way did you suffer? I find that I can
>> survive quite happily without meat, sometimes for years at a time.
>
> I agree with you there, I have gone for periods of two to three years
> without meat.

Why not two to three /decades/ then?
--
Of course I watch what I eat. {pause}
How else can I stab it to death? <eg>

[Alex Potter]

Bill Sornson wrote on Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:32:

> Ken M wrote:
>> Alex Potter wrote:
>>
>>> I'd love to know in what way did you suffer? I find that I can
>>> survive quite happily without meat, sometimes for years at a time.
>>
>> I agree with you there, I have gone for periods of two to three years
>> without meat.
>
> Why not two to three /decades/ then?

I tend to eat no meat during periods of relative poverty. So far,
they've never lasted for more than 4 or 5 years :)
--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

[Ken M]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> Why not two to three /decades/ then?

Sure why not, I am sure I could, but a small amount of meat from time to
time, maybe once every couple of weeks, tastes kind of good.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Bill Sornson]

Ken M wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>
>> Why not two to three /decades/ then?
>
> Sure why not, I am sure I could, but a small amount of meat from time
> to time, maybe once every couple of weeks, tastes kind of good.

Tastes kinda good every couple of /hours/, too!

:-D <--- happy meat eater

[Ken M]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> Tastes kinda good every couple of /hours/, too!
>
> :-D <--- happy meat eater
>
>

A heavy duty carnivore! ;)

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Bill Sornson]

Alex Potter wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote on Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:32:
>
>> Ken M wrote:
>>> Alex Potter wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'd love to know in what way did you suffer? I find that I can
>>>> survive quite happily without meat, sometimes for years at a time.
>>>
>>> I agree with you there, I have gone for periods of two to three
>>> years without meat.
>>
>> Why not two to three /decades/ then?
>
> I tend to eat no meat during periods of relative poverty. So far,
> they've never lasted for more than 4 or 5 years :)

Two words: Value Menu.

Bill "cheap carnivore" S.

PS: Just curious why both you and Ken are sort of "sometimes vegetarians".
Most vegans seem to be motivated by either moral or health reasons (like,
all or nothing); why cave in after a (or every) couple of years?

[Ken M]

Bill Sornson wrote:

> PS: Just curious why both you and Ken are sort of "sometimes vegetarians".
> Most vegans seem to be motivated by either moral or health reasons (like,
> all or nothing); why cave in after a (or every) couple of years?
>
>

I do the vegetarian thing for both health and moral reasons. Most
experts agree that a veg diet is healthier, take a look at
http://www.goveg.com/ an offshoot of PETA. And for moral reasons, man
raises and kills far more than is needed for food.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Alex Potter]

Bill Sornson wrote on Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:58:

I wrote:
>> I tend to eat no meat during periods of relative poverty. So far,
>> they've never lasted for more than 4 or 5 years :)
>
> Two words: Value Menu.
>
> Bill "cheap carnivore" S.
>
> PS: Just curious why both you and Ken are sort of "sometimes
> vegetarians". Most vegans seem to be motivated by either moral or
> health reasons (like, all or nothing); why cave in after a (or every)
> couple of years?

Well, for starters, I'm never vegan - I wear leather and eat fish, eggs,
meat and I drink milk too.

I've spent long periods of my life living with vegetarians, and, being
lazy, ate what the group ate.

Here on the right hand side of the pond, a diet that contains cheap meat
is much more expensive than one that doesn't. So when I'm not well off,
I tend to eat mainly vegetables, grains, pulses and dairy produce. One
of the advantages of being a member of an omnivorous species :)

I have no moral objections to carnivorous beings - in a previous life I
used to be a dairy herdsman, and was quite happy to care for the
bull-calves and then see them off on the lorry to the slaughterhouse
when they were full grown and ready for eating. I don't believe that
eating meat is necessarily unhealthy.

--
Regards
Alex
The From address above is a spam-trap.
The Reply-To address is valid

[Bill Sornson]

Ken M wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>> PS: Just curious why both you and Ken are sort of "sometimes
>> vegetarians". Most vegans seem to be motivated by either moral or
>> health reasons (like, all or nothing); why cave in after a (or
>> every) couple of years?
>
> I do the vegetarian thing for both health and moral reasons. Most
> experts agree that a veg diet is healthier, take a look at
> http://www.goveg.com/ an offshoot of PETA. And for moral reasons, man
> raises and kills far more than is needed for food.

But then why eat meat every couple of weeks?!? (OR years.)

Bill "running out of fingers adding this up" S.

[Bill Sornson]

Alex Potter wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote on Wednesday 14 December 2005 16:58:
>
> I wrote:
>>> I tend to eat no meat during periods of relative poverty. So far,
>>> they've never lasted for more than 4 or 5 years :)
>>
>> Two words: Value Menu.
>>
>> Bill "cheap carnivore" S.
>>
>> PS: Just curious why both you and Ken are sort of "sometimes
>> vegetarians". Most vegans seem to be motivated by either moral or
>> health reasons (like, all or nothing); why cave in after a (or every)
>> couple of years?
>
> Well, for starters, I'm never vegan - I wear leather and eat fish,
> eggs, meat and I drink milk too.
>
> I've spent long periods of my life living with vegetarians, and, being
> lazy, ate what the group ate.
>
> Here on the right hand side of the pond, a diet that contains cheap
> meat is much more expensive than one that doesn't. So when I'm not
> well off, I tend to eat mainly vegetables, grains, pulses and dairy
> produce. One of the advantages of being a member of an omnivorous
> species :)
>
> I have no moral objections to carnivorous beings - in a previous life
> I used to be a dairy herdsman, and was quite happy to care for the
> bull-calves and then see them off on the lorry to the slaughterhouse
> when they were full grown and ready for eating. I don't believe that
> eating meat is necessarily unhealthy.

Ah. Gotcha.

Thanks.

[Buck]

Ken M wrote:
> Buck wrote:
> > I would ask you to consider the current deer population problems and
> > potential solutions before you start lambasting hunters or omnivores in
> > general.
> >
> The population of any animal is limited by that animals natural predators.

Predators aren't the only limiting factor. Food supply is also of
importance in population dynamics.

There are few natural predators of deer (large carnivores like wolves
or cougars) and we have eliminated most of them through habitat
destruction. The same agricultural, forestry and urban growth practices
which limit habitat for large carnivores have greatly increased the
potential food supply for deer. That leaves us with a few choices: 1)
Let the deer population explode, then eventually crash as the deer
overpopulate and starve to death; 2) Try to control deer populations
through birth control practices which has proven to be ineffective and
expensive; 3) Let the only other deer predator, human beings, hunt the
deer.

Given your stated position on hunting, which alternative would you
choose?

-Buck

[Buck]

Alex Potter wrote:
> Buck wrote on Wednesday 14 December 2005 14:06:
>
> > I suffered as a vegetarian for two years before deciding that
> > eating meat was a healthier way to live.
>
> I'd love to know in what way did you suffer? I find that I can survive
> quite happily without meat, sometimes for years at a time.

During the time I was a vegetarian I suffered from fatigue and severe
allergy problems. Most of that went away shortly after I started eating
meat again.

Meat has never been a large proportion of my diet. I think that is why
it was relatively easy for me to make the switch. I eat beef or pork
once or twice a week, but I do eat chicken, turkey, or eggs almost
daily. Fish is rare in my diet.

Besides the physical problems being a vegetarian, there was the mental
anguish of craving meat while watching friends or family enjoy it. :)
hmmmmm, bar-b-que...

-Buck

[Ken M]

Buck wrote:

> Besides the physical problems being a vegetarian, there was the mental
> anguish of craving meat while watching friends or family enjoy it. :)
> hmmmmm, bar-b-que...
>
> -Buck
>

To each his own.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Ken M]

Buck wrote:
> Ken M wrote:
>
>>Buck wrote:
>>
>>>I would ask you to consider the current deer population problems and
>>>potential solutions before you start lambasting hunters or omnivores in
>>>general.
>>>
>>
>>The population of any animal is limited by that animals natural predators.
>
>
> Predators aren't the only limiting factor. Food supply is also of
> importance in population dynamics.
>
> There are few natural predators of deer (large carnivores like wolves
> or cougars) and we have eliminated most of them through habitat
> destruction. The same agricultural, forestry and urban growth practices
> which limit habitat for large carnivores have greatly increased the
> potential food supply for deer. That leaves us with a few choices: 1)
> Let the deer population explode, then eventually crash as the deer
> overpopulate and starve to death; 2) Try to control deer populations
> through birth control practices which has proven to be ineffective and
> expensive; 3) Let the only other deer predator, human beings, hunt the
> deer.
>
> Given your stated position on hunting, which alternative would you
> choose?
>
> -Buck
>
I would rather see nature take it's course. If man did not hunt the
wolves and big cats down to almost extinction then the deer population
would remain in check.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Ken M]

Bill Sornson wrote:

>
> But then why eat meat every couple of weeks?!? (OR years.)
>
> Bill "running out of fingers adding this up" S.
>
>

The way I look at it is this: If everyone in the world ate as I do, the
need to raise animals for food would be greatly reduced. I will not say
everyone everywhere needs to give up all consumption of meat. I do eat
meat once every so often.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Buck]

Ken M wrote:
> Buck wrote:
> > There are few natural predators of deer (large carnivores like wolves
> > or cougars) and we have eliminated most of them through habitat
> > destruction. The same agricultural, forestry and urban growth practices
> > which limit habitat for large carnivores have greatly increased the
> > potential food supply for deer. That leaves us with a few choices: 1)
> > Let the deer population explode, then eventually crash as the deer
> > overpopulate and starve to death; 2) Try to control deer populations
> > through birth control practices which has proven to be ineffective and
> > expensive; 3) Let the only other deer predator, human beings, hunt the
> > deer.
> >
> > Given your stated position on hunting, which alternative would you
> > choose?
> >
> > -Buck
> >
> I would rather see nature take it's course. If man did not hunt the
> wolves and big cats down to almost extinction then the deer population
> would remain in check.

It isn't a matter of humans hunting big predators to extinction. It is
a matter of habitat loss. When we do not keep the deer population in
check, the deer population increases exponentially until the exceed the
carrying capacity of the environment. The deer then begin to move into
the suburban environment seeking food. Deer cause more human injuries
and deaths than any other animal in the U.S. This is simply because
they decide to cross the road in front of a moving vehicle and injure
or kill the occupants when the deer passes through the windshield.

Although I am not a hunter, I would much rather the deer population be
controlled by enthusiastic hunters than through starvation.

Besides, when the population gets too high, they put me at risk by
running across the road in front of me on my bicycle. I almost hit one
last year....

-Buck

[Ken M]

Buck wrote:

> It isn't a matter of humans hunting big predators to extinction. It is
> a matter of habitat loss. When we do not keep the deer population in
> check, the deer population increases exponentially until the exceed the
> carrying capacity of the environment. The deer then begin to move into
> the suburban environment seeking food. Deer cause more human injuries
> and deaths than any other animal in the U.S. This is simply because
> they decide to cross the road in front of a moving vehicle and injure
> or kill the occupants when the deer passes through the windshield.
>
In years long ago wolves and cougars were hunted to near extinction, and
they still are not at the numbers they once were.
True habitat loss does play a factor, but not as much as the public is
led to believe.

> Although I am not a hunter, I would much rather the deer population be
> controlled by enthusiastic hunters than through starvation.
>
If the hunted animals are used as food, I object less, however many of
the animals that are slaughtered are killed just for fun and the
carcasses left to rot. That is just wasteful.

> Besides, when the population gets too high, they put me at risk by
> running across the road in front of me on my bicycle. I almost hit one
> last year....
>
I have never hit one yet. I have seen a bunch while riding.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[gds]

Ken M wrote:
..
> >
>
> True habitat loss does play a factor, but not as much as the public is
> led to believe.
>
Where do you get your data?

Every modern study I have seen lists habitat loss as the main peril
facing wildlife.
In the North east a number of studies strongly associated the decline
of muskrat populations to the draining of wetlands.

In Pima county AZ an award winning study that resulted in a "Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan" that addresses the issue head on. It sets up
limits on development and funding so that the state and county can
purchase land and keep it free from development. Nowhere in the plan is
hunting an issue.

So while it is true that in the past hunting of predators had the
result of bio imbalance that is not the current risk according to any
of the many studies I have seen. In fact in many jurisdictions hunting
of formerly protected species is being encouraged to solve bio
imbalance issues.

[David L. Johnson]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:45:47 -0500, Ken M wrote:

>> There are few natural predators of deer (large carnivores like wolves
>> or cougars) and we have eliminated most of them through habitat
>> destruction. The same agricultural, forestry and urban growth practices
>> which limit habitat for large carnivores have greatly increased the
>> potential food supply for deer. That leaves us with a few choices: 1)
>> Let the deer population explode, then eventually crash as the deer
>> overpopulate and starve to death; 2) Try to control deer populations
>> through birth control practices which has proven to be ineffective and
>> expensive; 3) Let the only other deer predator, human beings, hunt the
>> deer.
>>
>> Given your stated position on hunting, which alternative would you
>> choose?
>>
>> -Buck
>>
> I would rather see nature take it's course. If man did not hunt the
> wolves and big cats down to almost extinction then the deer population
> would remain in check.

At this stage nature is nowhere in the equation. Stopping human hunting
of deer would only lead to an explosion of deer in the woods, which would
greatly increase collisions between deer and vehicles -- including bikes.
That would hardly be a natural state of things, and crops and household
gardens would be ravaged by starving deer.

On the other hand, you can't really consider re-introducing predators
without accepting a certain level of attacks on people by these predators.
Considering the fuss that was made last Summer by a mountain lion who
killed a mountain biker in California, do you think the people of, say,
Pennsylvania, would be happy about 10-20 humans beings being "culled" by
mountain lions every year? Or wolves taking a hundred domestic pets each
year?

Any alternative you choose has repercussions. Frankly, although I hate
hunting, and the gun culture that supports it, there is really no better
choice to manage deer populations.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | It is a scientifically proven fact that a mid life crisis can
_`\(,_ | only be cured by something racy and Italian. Bianchis and
(_)/ (_) | Colnagos are a lot cheaper than Maserattis and Ferraris. --
Glenn Davies

[Paul Hobson]

Ken M wrote:
> Buck wrote:
>
>> It isn't a matter of humans hunting big predators to extinction. It is
>> a matter of habitat loss. When we do not keep the deer population in
>> check, the deer population increases exponentially until the exceed the
>> carrying capacity of the environment. The deer then begin to move into
>> the suburban environment seeking food. Deer cause more human injuries
>> and deaths than any other animal in the U.S. This is simply because
>> they decide to cross the road in front of a moving vehicle and injure
>> or kill the occupants when the deer passes through the windshield.
>>
> In years long ago wolves and cougars were hunted to near extinction, and
> they still are not at the numbers they once were.
> True habitat loss does play a factor, but not as much as the public is
> led to believe.
>
>> Although I am not a hunter, I would much rather the deer population be
>> controlled by enthusiastic hunters than through starvation.
>>
> If the hunted animals are used as food, I object less, however many of
> the animals that are slaughtered are killed just for fun and the
> carcasses left to rot. That is just wasteful.

Growing up in Atlanta sprawl, I was only a mile or two from *rural*
Georgia. I don't think that is a fair assessment of hunters at all. I
don't hunt. Probably never could. But I truly feel you have a a
distorted perception there.

\\paul
--
Paul M. Hobson
Georgia Institute of Technology
..:change the words to numbers
if you want to reply to me:.

[Zoot Katz]

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:15:58 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> wrote:

>Any alternative you choose has repercussions. Frankly, although I hate
>hunting, and the gun culture that supports it, there is really no better
>choice to manage deer populations.

Hunting does a pretty good job of managing the hunters' population as
well.
--
zk

[Ken M]

Paul Hobson wrote:


>
> Growing up in Atlanta sprawl, I was only a mile or two from *rural*
> Georgia. I don't think that is a fair assessment of hunters at all. I
> don't hunt. Probably never could. But I truly feel you have a a
> distorted perception there.

I am sure not all hunters are wasteful, but when I lived in Virginia I
remember hiking in an area frequented by deer and seeing many that were
killed and left to rot. In one instance I saw a pile of at least 4 or 5,
that looked like they had just been pushed out of the back of a pick-up
truck.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[Ken M]

gds wrote:

>
> Where do you get your data?
>
> Every modern study I have seen lists habitat loss as the main peril
> facing wildlife.
> In the North east a number of studies strongly associated the decline
> of muskrat populations to the draining of wetlands.
>
> In Pima county AZ an award winning study that resulted in a "Sonoran
> Desert Conservation Plan" that addresses the issue head on. It sets up
> limits on development and funding so that the state and county can
> purchase land and keep it free from development. Nowhere in the plan is
> hunting an issue.
>
> So while it is true that in the past hunting of predators had the
> result of bio imbalance that is not the current risk according to any
> of the many studies I have seen. In fact in many jurisdictions hunting
> of formerly protected species is being encouraged to solve bio
> imbalance issues.
>

My info comes from a show on "animal planet", show likened the big cats
and wolves to black bears in the fact that they are very adaptable to
the environment. In the same way the black bears are now so much a
"problem" in N.J. that a hunting season was created. But as with black
bears, the problem comes from the habits of people. Leaving garbage out,
letting pets roam at will etc,etc, etc.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells

[H M Leary]

In article >,
Zoot Katz > wrote:

> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:15:58 -0500, "David L. Johnson"
> > wrote:
>
> >Any alternative you choose has repercussions. Frankly, although I hate
> >hunting, and the gun culture that supports it, there is really no better
> >choice to manage deer populations.
>
> Hunting does a pretty good job of managing the hunters' population as
> well.

Especially in Professor Johnson's home state of Pennsylvania!

Take them deer hunting.

Get drunk and run them over with an SUV.

Get them riding a bicycle.

What are the three best ways to kill someone and get away with it?

......:)

Please don't do the above...have a safe and happy holiday season!

[gds]

Well that explains it. Do you think that episode would be of the same
scientific merit as studies published in academic, peer reviewed
journals. Those studies show loss of habitat to be the number one
threat.

[Ken M]

gds wrote:
> Well that explains it. Do you think that episode would be of the same
> scientific merit as studies published in academic, peer reviewed
> journals. Those studies show loss of habitat to be the number one
> threat.
>
Well do a google search and you can find all sorts of info regarding the
adaptablity of wolves and to a lesser extent cougars.

http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/mammals/cowolf/wolf.htm

The above page states that in Europe (Spain, Italy and Portugal) much of
the wolves diet consists of trash, from people. And that they often
venture into villages at night to scavenge.

But that just goes to prove my point about the predators being adaptable.

Ken
--
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the
human race. ~H.G. Wells