Originally posted by trawets113Good googly moogly. You've got to be kidding. That's like arguing against replanting forests that have been harvested for lumber. Would you rather leave the area barren? Would you rather have no conservation effort made? Lets not research alternative fuels because we may have an unforeseen effect on the environment, etc... Would you really have us believe that conservation efforts should not be undertaken? That the benefits are outweighed by the consequences? Lets do nothing and hope for the best.
I will try to explain this to you, if you stock a lake with fish, where do they come from.
They are bred for this purpose, therefore they are isolated from natural stocks, when then introduced to the lake some escape, breed with natural stocks and affect the genes of future offspring, also potentially spreading disease and hybridastion. This is a known ...[text shortened]... f we continue.
My proof.
http://www.arkive.org/species/ARK/fish/Salmo_salar/more_info.html
Your arguement is quite possibly the worst I've ever seen... for anything... even at a grade school level... in the Special Ed class. I've resisted so far, but, no... I.. can't stop... myself DUMMMBAASSSSS!.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateIm the dumbass, coming from the person who thinks fisheries and HUNTING reserves are there for the purpose of conservation. Oh dear. They are simply ways of making profit, with the slight excuse of helping conserve certain species, so as to keep simple saps ENTER YOU happy. lol
Good googly moogly. You've got to be kidding. That's like arguing against replanting forests that have been harvested for lumber. Would you rather leave the area barren? Would you rather have no conservation effort made? Lets not research alternative fuels because we may have an unforeseen effect on the environment, etc... Would you really have ...[text shortened]... Ed class. I've resisted so far, but, no... I.. can't stop... myself [b]DUMMMBAASSSSS!.[/b]
Originally posted by trawets113You're right of course, the 100,000's of thousands of acres of Wildlife Management property, just in my state alone, are just for show. The yearly land purchases, restricted hunting dates, controlled burns and replanting, feed plots and a host of other public works are total crap. I haven't deluded myself into thinking that all my contributions go strictly to wildlife management, but, I do see yearly improvements. Which is more than I can say for many other social programs.
Im the dumbass, coming from the person who thinks fisheries and HUNTING reserves are there for the purpose of conservation. Oh dear. They are simply ways of making profit, with the slight excuse of helping conserve certain species, so as to keep simple saps ENTER YOU happy. lol
What would you have me do? What's your cunning plan to save the world? Answer the legitimate questions I have asked you?
Originally posted by Hand of HecateLMAO your argument is based on what YOU can see, there are genetics, generations, long term effects, knock on effects, etc etc and lots of other possible effects.
You're right of course, the 100,000's of thousands of acres of Wildlife Management property, just in my state alone, are just for show. The yearly land purchases, restricted hunting dates, controlled burns and replanting, feed plots and a host of other public works are total crap. I haven't deluded myself into thinking that all my contributions go s ...[text shortened]... at's your cunning plan to save the world? Answer the legitimate questions I have asked you?
In the end I'm only debating and don't really care what you do. But I hope maybe some of what I have said has set you thinking.
Originally posted by trawets113I'm sure you're an expert on all of these issues. However, as a theory becomes larger and tries to encompass more concepts and ideas, it inherently becomes less accurate. Hence, long term, generational effects are educated guesses at best. A postulate based on the observation of a smaller population, minimal variables and easily measured local causes and effects can be significantly more accurate. (For example, I have taken a limited sampling of your posts and concluded, with some accuracy I might add, that you are an idiot.) hink of a single Wildlife Management area being a test beaker. Physical effects in said beaker can be observed and extrapolated as being valid on a larger scale.
LMAO your argument is based on what YOU can see, there are genetics, generations, long term effects, knock on effects, etc etc and lots of other possible effects.
In the end I'm only debating and don't really care what you do. But I hope maybe some of what I have said has set you thinking.
Regardless, you avoid the question. Would you have us make no conservation effort? Would you have us wait generations to measure a possible negative effect which you may or may not be able to link to a conservation program?
Originally posted by Hand of HecateYou try to discredit my arguments with insults. Simply demonstrates a lack of intelect on your behalf. If you hadn't noticed there are scientific bodies out there. E.g. Environmental agencies who monitor and extrapolate this data. We know there are detrimental effects due to past tests, so it is no longer an educated guess. Point is to fence an area off and keep humans out would be most beneficial.
I'm sure you're an expert on all of these issues. However, as a theory becomes larger and tries to encompass more concepts and ideas, it inherently becomes less accurate. Hence, long term, generational effects are educated guesses at best. A postulate based on the observation of a smaller population, minimal variables and easily measured local caus ...[text shortened]... a possible negative effect which you may or may not be able to link to a conservation program?
Originally posted by trawets113All fish in the US fresh water fisheries that are stocked are from the same genetic stock they are replacing. And further, non-natives are not stocked where they can screw up an ecosystem. In colorado for example, the primary species that is stocked is the rainbow trout. They are released into waters native to natural rainbow trout. Where do you think they got said trout, Wal-mart? They origionally were taken from those waters, raised free of predation and disease and then bred. The offspring were released back into their native habitat. This allows everyone here to fish for trout within reasonable limits and not impact the population greatly. Another thing it allows for is a quarantied pure breeding stock for "insurance" purposes. We got hit with a disease which decimated our native fish stocks, called whirling disease. It didn't come from overfishing or the conservation programs in place. It came primarilly from recreational boaters moving their boats from infected lakes far from here into waters here. Our fisheries stocking program had fish of the same gene-pool as the natives that were quarantined from the infection. It took years to track down what the problem was, and enact measures and laws to prevent it's spreading again. Once the ecosystem had been restored and the disease controled the quarantined fish were released to repopulate the lakes and rivers. Without a fisheries program most native American trout would have been wiped out.
I will try to explain this to you, if you stock a lake with fish, where do they come from.
They are bred for this purpose, therefore they are isolated from natural stocks, when then introduced to the lake some escape, breed with natural stocks and affect the genes of future offspring, also potentially spreading disease and hybridastion. This is a known ...[text shortened]... f we continue.
My proof.
http://www.arkive.org/species/ARK/fish/Salmo_salar/more_info.html
Similarly hunting dollars have gone to replenishing waterfowl, upland game birds, turkey, bear, lynx, and cougar. In general the populations of deer, antelope, bear, cougar, and fowl are larger than any time in the last 75-100 years. In fact it is so robust in some cases that many states are bemoaning the lower number of hunters as the populations of so animals is negatively impacting everything from serious crop damage/loss to auto insurance increase due to so many auto vs. big game collisions. There is also a possible link to the prevalence of a disease similar to mad cow found in wild game(called CWD), and overpopulation of herds due to insufficient predation. In some areas the states are resorting to a scorched earth policy of having to wipe out every animal in a very large area to insure the disease does not spread state wide. What are some of the methods being discussed to repopulate these areas? Restocking from populations on game reserves may be one of the only good solutions.
Originally posted by Moldy CrowLiar, liar pants on fire!
All fish in the US fresh water fisheries that are stocked are from the same genetic stock they are replacing. And further, non-natives are not stocked where they can screw up an ecosystem. In colorado for example, the primary species that is stocked is the rainbow trout. They are released into waters native to natural rainbow trout. Where do you think the ...[text shortened]... e areas? Restocking from populations on game reserves may be one of the only good solutions.
Originally posted by trawets113I won't weigh in on the hunting issue but... Your salmon analogy holds no weight in this debate as salmon are a salt water fish that spawn in fresh water streams. As such they would not be stocked in a lake! What you are referring to has more substance if you were debating farm raised fish for food versus wild caught.
I will try to explain this to you, if you stock a lake with fish, where do they come from.
They are bred for this purpose, therefore they are isolated from natural stocks, when then introduced to the lake some escape, breed with natural stocks and affect the genes of future offspring, also potentially spreading disease and hybridastion. This is a known ...[text shortened]... f we continue.
My proof.
http://www.arkive.org/species/ARK/fish/Salmo_salar/more_info.html
Also here in Pennsylvania the fish that are stocked for recreational fishing are indeed of the same genetic makeup as their wild brethern.
As far as hunting conservation goes, again I can only speak for Pennsylvania but, when my Father was a boy hunting here [1920's] if he saw a deer track he was excited. In the 50's and 60's when I was a boy and hunting with my Father you would see lots of tracks and if you saw a nice buck you were excited. Now here it is the year 2006 and as I sit here typing there are 20 deer at my backyard feeder. I don't hunt anymore but this area is populated by avid hunters who take the sport seriously because many depend on it to supplement their food budget. I think that the conservation programs set forth by PA and their sportsmen have been a success. Just ask anyone who drives our highways!!
Originally posted by DrumboI have can go out without the fear of getting attacked by deer, prairie dogs, birds or anything else, I also never get hungry enough to feel the need to kill them for food.
There's a vast array of applications that require different firearms. A 7m/m Remington Magnum is great for deer, but way too powerful for prairie dogs, in which case a .223 would be a better choice.For general plinking, a .22 long rifle is best. A shotgun is needed for birds. An automatic pistol for IPSC competition. A revolver for ........yadayadayada..I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
I guess I should consider myself lucky.