Trap & Drown?

[oldjones]

But they are not humans.... I mean really...why do we need to say that ..really...what about grass plants when society just chops them in half mass slaughter with the green blood everywhere of the baby grass plants...really?? Now get that dress off and go get some common sense...really!!

And how is any of this relevant to human conduct, unless you're saying animals or any living part of the environment is to be treated with any cruelty or wanton disregard any 'human' (using the term loosely) chooses at any time.

Taking your dog for a romp behind your car on the 401 today? Or do you actually have some common sense your post didn't reveal… Really!!

We don't have a raccoon problem, as many have said they are smart adaptive critters. But we do have a human problem with people too incompetent to manage their own properties and food waste who think the answer is to kill the smart critters and preserve their own stupid genes.

 

[james t kirk]

I heard that antifreeze has a sweet taste that the coons like even though once they drink it they will crawl away and die.

The other critter that needs a serious culling are the geese. The waterfront parks are a mess with all of their green shit. NOw culling the geese should be accompanied by an Honest Ed's giveaway...just like he gave away turkeys these huge geese could all go towards feeding people in Toronto.

You should try drinking some anti-freeze yourself and tell us how it feels.

One less moron in the world would be a very good thing

 

[oldjones]

…edit…The other critter that needs a serious culling are the geese.…edit…

Now you're getting somewhere; you just left out all the hard parts, perhaps due to brain-pain.

We have eliminated the predator species that would normally control the raccoon and other populations like geese because we're too scared of things like coyotes, foxes and <gasp> wolves. So we perhaps must become the predators who do that job and cull the population.

But that's a case yet to be made and proven and not a single poster's even come close to trying. Just a buncha nut job sadists going on about anti-freeze and drowning in cages.

It's not our environment alone, folks. It belongs to every living thing in it and every one of them is part of our privileged and selfish place in it and makes it possible. We destroy them, any of them, at risk to ourselves and our descendents and we should feel the pain when we do.

Look up Easter island and what environmental stupidity reduced that population to, scraping barnacles off rocks for food and living in holes, without fire because they'd merrily cut down all the trees, first because there wre so many, who cared. And the last tree, because, "What use is it except to meet our desperate need. And we come first."

When we evolve enough to do simple things like keep our food scraps—Food Scraps!!!?!—awy from raccoons, maybe we'll be entitled to imagine , "We come first". Like the Easter Islanders.

 

[fuji]

Actually, OJ, I disagree with this: "It's not our environment alone, folks. It belongs to every living thing..."

Yes it is our environment alone. Every living thing in the environment is part of our shared heritage, and we should work to protect and preserve that heritage for the benefit of our children. But it is ours. Even the idea of ownership is a human creation. Depending on your religious view it either exists for our benefit, or else it simply exists and we're here to make use of it. In either case the only grounds for protecting and preserving it is our own future benefit. Certainly, that is a considerable benefit! But it is our environment, and our benefit, and our needs and issues that are to be considered. The interests and needs of other animals are considered only in so far as that's necessary in order to preserve our own future access to them.

 

[GG2]

It's not our environment alone, folks. It belongs to every living thing in it and every one of them is part of our privileged and selfish place in it and makes it possible. We destroy them, any of them, at risk to ourselves and our descendents and we should feel the pain when we do.

That's some serious rhetorical tree-hugging talk.

We should protect the environment for the sake of our own self-preservation. It's the smart thing to do if you care about your future and humanity. Killing over-populated raccoons because the ecosystem they once lived in is shattered makese sense.

The environment is ours. Just as the beaver builds his beaver dam and makes a place for himself, humans build and carve out our living space. We clear out all things we don't want within our living space, such as raccoons. This is natural and good. If I believed there was no future for humans, I wouldn't care one iota what what happens to the Earth. But I enjoy the world and its resoucres and I want my future kids to enjoy that too, so protecting the Earth makes sense.

 

[Consilio]

Releasing them more than a km from where they have been captured is a certain and not pleasant way for them to die. Euthanasing them is a better choice.

Not if you trap them and release them all in Brampton. Lots of garbage for them to eat there.

 

[oldjones]

Actually, OJ, I disagree with this: "It's not our environment alone, folks. It belongs to every living thing..."

Yes it is our environment alone. Every living thing in the environment is part of our shared heritage, and we should work to protect and preserve that heritage for the benefit of our children. But it is ours. Even the idea of ownership is a human creation. Depending on your religious view it either exists for our benefit, or else it simply exists and we're here to make use of it. In either case the only grounds for protecting and preserving it is our own future benefit. Certainly, that is a considerable benefit! But it is our environment, and our benefit, and our needs and issues that are to be considered. The interests and needs of other animals are considered only in so far as that's necessary in order to preserve our own future access to them.

Ok I heard you say , "It is ours." But if this is part of a discussion, you kinda gotta support that assertion with logic, facts or both. Simply saying , "it is ours," and "The interests and needs of other animals are considered only in so far as that's necessary in order to preserve our own future access to them" doesn't make either a fact. The 'logic' of small-minded, short-sighted selfishness is apparent, but not at all persuasive of anything but that small-minded, short-sighted selfishness is alive and well. No surprise there.

We're just one one animal among many others; we only imagine we have the brain-power it takes to manage our own tiny personal environments, some cannot. There's no eveidence at all that we could properly manage an ecosystem, but over and over we create messes—like wildlife in farming areas—where we have totry or the ShovelPeople will come out in force.

fuji aked how e]we'd best cuul the raccoon population in the City. First we should know a LOT about it, and we don't. Second, we should know how many we can actually live with in our ravines, and wilder spaces, without confrontation issues. Third we should know how many raccoons beyond that base are being supported and encouraged by idiots who put out food waste [sic. As if there was any such thing] 24 hrs or more before pick-up in inadequate containers. We should know hopw many people are housing raccoons under decayiong porches and in ramshackle garages and attics they cannot maintain and manage Those are the miscreants who need to be identified, confronted and re-trained.

Their raccoon victims—the excess population they encouraged, fed and housed— we can then count and decide what to do with. My own vote would be licensed tarp-lines in the parks, alleys and lanes, with special trapping orders at the owner's cost when they're found in residence, or supported by food. They make great coats and hats. After the big cull sets a market demand, prices should rise due to lesser supply ij subsequent 'maintenance years'. Have a cousin a bit north of Detriot whose kid put himself through engineering school that way.

 

[fuji]

OJ, on what basis do you call "the environment is ours" small minded? What underpins your weird and strange notion that it is NOT ours?

From practically any moral, philosophical, or religious perspective that you could adopt the argument that it is ours carries quite strongly. If you look at it non-religiously, all species basically exploit the environment to their maximum advantage. We can be seen as no different in doing the same. Plainly, in some ways we have come to dominate over all other species. In other ways we have not. In any case we are behaving just like any other species in maximizing the advantage we extract from the environment potentially at the expense of all other species. Like many species have we will find it advantageous to maintain a symbiotic relationship with some of the others. As a thinking species that is capable of planning for the unexpected we may also advantage ourselves by preserving species we don't currently have any use for--just because we might find some day that we do have a need.

You may say but hey, we are not just like every other species, so we can go beyond the straight forward exploitation that others do. First of all if you make that argument you are tacitly admiting that we are not "just one animal among many others", we are fundamentally different. The moral and religious theories you might bring to bear are our invention. The other species don't even have morality. We created that. For us, to advantage our own civilization, by making it work better, enabling us to co-operate more effectively, and to build trust relationships with one another. But scrape that all away and it's just another thing we're doing for our own advantage.

I can't fathom why you would think that we are just one species among many, or that the other species have rights. We are the creators of rights. Without us rights don't exist. We made that up, again, all for our benefit.

 

[GG2]

Even the idea of ownership is a human creation.

My guess is that OJ is a pet owner. Rather than let animals roam freely as they would in their natural condition, he'd prefer to own them, and place them figuratively and literally at his heels. Which is all fine and good. As a human, he has every right to lord over the lesser animals as he pleases.

I always get a chuckle out of the laborious, disingenuous commentary provided by the Mother Earth crowd.

 

[lamgos]

feed them high cholesterol high fat diet and they will get too fat to climb trees and die of natural causes

 

[B-Bone]

"Trap and Drown" is a fucked up thread title to see pop up when looking for jolly reviews of hookers.

 

[onthebottom]

 

[fuji]

41 to 6 in favour of culling.. if terb ran city council those raccoons would be done for.

 

[oldjones]

OJ, on what basis do you call "the environment is ours" small minded? What underpins your weird and strange notion that it is NOT ours?

From practically any moral, philosophical, or religious perspective that you could adopt the argument that it is ours carries quite strongly. If you look at it non-religiously, all species basically exploit the environment to their maximum advantage. We can be seen as no different in doing the same. Plainly, in some ways we have come to dominate over all other species. In other ways we have not. In any case we are behaving just like any other species in maximizing the advantage we extract from the environment potentially at the expense of all other species. Like many species have we will find it advantageous to maintain a symbiotic relationship with some of the others. As a thinking species that is capable of planning for the unexpected we may also advantage ourselves by preserving species we don't currently have any use for--just because we might find some day that we do have a need.

You may say but hey, we are not just like every other species, so we can go beyond the straight forward exploitation that others do. First of all if you make that argument you are tacitly admiting that we are not "just one animal among many others", we are fundamentally different. The moral and religious theories you might bring to bear are our invention. The other species don't even have morality. We created that. For us, to advantage our own civilization, by making it work better, enabling us to co-operate more effectively, and to build trust relationships with one another. But scrape that all away and it's just another thing we're doing for our own advantage.

I can't fathom why you would think that we are just one species among many, or that the other species have rights. We are the creators of rights. Without us rights don't exist. We made that up, again, all for our benefit.

Your Para !: You say the environment is not "ours", but is for every species to exploit. We're just one species.
Your Para 2: You and I are both saying that our species, like any and all others has attributes unique to it. Ours being an intelligence we constantly over-estimate and overvalue, which has given us unparalelled power over the entire environment. Doesn't make it ours in any sense, beyond a Hitler/Gangster sense. If we hadn't long ago evolved past that we wouldn't be having this and many other debates about the balance between brute selfishness and intelligence. There's a reason why the word 'thoiughtfulness' is defined as it is.
Your Para 3: If we are not one species among many what the hell are we? I can't fathom why you think I said other species have rights, as if rights exist ab origine; that's your dstortion of my position, which is we're too stupid to manage the environment, but with the power and lust to do so that no one can deny we have we must do so as wisely as we can. Morals and ethics, like rights, are tools we have invented along our evolutionary journe to help us be wise. If it helps the simple-minded to imagine that animals, cold-blooded, mammalian, human or fishy have rights, to stop knuckle-draggers from swinging shovels at them, or wiping them out like passenger pigeons, so be it.

Whatever works.

 

[GG2]

Airport geese to be cooked for poor

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110617...jbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawNhaXJwb3J0Z2Vlc2U-

"NEW YORK (Reuters) – New York City plans to capture pesky geese that threaten planes departing area airports and send them to Pennsylvania to be cooked for meals for the poor, city officials said.

The plan is aimed at avoiding incidents like the forced landing of a U.S. Airways plane in the Hudson River in January 2009 after a flock of errant geese were caught in the engine during takeoff from LaGuardia Airport.

Mass culls to clear the geese from the area were authorized after the National Transportation Safety Board positively identified the remains of Canada geese in the engine of the aircraft.

The city will pay for the capture and transport of the geese to facilities in Pennsylvania where they will be distributed to Pennsylvania food banks, a spokesman for the city's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) said.

"Rather than disposing of them in landfills, we wanted to make sure they do not go to waste," the spokesman said.

According to the DEP, no suitable locations could be found in New York that were willing to take the geese as donations.

Officials are currently surveying the New York area for large concentrations of geese.

Last summer, efforts to collect and gas thousands of geese were met with angry protests from animal rights activists." lol

 

[roadshuttle]

Leave the Racoons alone.
I say we domesticate them. In about a thousand or so generations, they will make great companions to us, like dogs. Better yet, they have an opposing thumb. We can train them to do stuff for us, like wash the dishes, grab the paper for us.

 

[danmand]

I say we domesticate them. In about a thousand or so generations, they will make great companions to us, like dogs. Better yet, they have an opposing thumb. We can train them to do stuff for us, like wash the dishes, grab the paper for us.

That is a good proposal from an unlikely source. I think it is a brilliant idea.Let us create a strain of domesticated racoons. We can call them petcoons and with their cute looks and clever antics, they will be Canada's contribution to the world.

 

[PornAddict]

Leave the Racoons alone.
I say we domesticate them. In about a thousand or so generations, they will make great companions to us, like dogs. Better yet, they have an opposing thumb. We can train them to do stuff for us, like wash the dishes, grab the paper for us.

Unfortunately they carried diease like ringworm which is common for them when they shit and deadly on human causes neurological damage on human when we breathe in the ringworm. but humans can be infected and suffer severe neurological damage or death.

That is a good proposal from an unlikely source. I think it is a brilliant idea.Let us create a strain of domesticated racoons. We can call them petcoons and with their cute looks and clever antics, they will be Canada's contribution to the world.

Really a stupid idea.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local..._tot_ringworm_could_be_fatal_to_children.html

A rare, deadly disease that has left an infant brain damaged and a teenager blind in one eye, has been detected in Brooklyn, the Daily News has learned.

The city's Department of Health is on alert for Raccoon Ringworm, a disease contracted through contact with raccoon feces. It can cause permanent nerve damage and death.

"Parents should closely supervise small children in areas where raccoons live to prevent possible ingestion of raccoon feces," said Sally Slavinski, of a Health Department unit that deals with diseases that can be transmitted between animals and humans.

In the first case, a healthy infant who traveled to upstate New York last year started having seizures and spinal problems last October. The baby has been brain-damaged and hospitalized ever since.

Then, in January, a Brooklyn teen who hasn't left the city recently, lost sight in the right eye.

Fewer than 30 cases of Raccoon Ringworm have been reported nationwide. It takes two to four weeks for symptoms, which include nausea, loss of coordination and muscle control, and blindness, to develop.

News of the disease, which strikes mostly kids and especially developmentally disabled children, sent shivers through city playgrounds.

"It's terrifying. God only knows how I would react if my kids became that ill," said Bay Ridge mom of two, Angelia Kane, 38.

"The concern for me would be kids being kids. I have a 3-year-old girl and a 6-year-old boy. When they're slightly out of sight, they're going to pick up something in the course of their normal behavior and put their filthy hands in their mouths."

With the swine flu outbreak, Kane's kids have been washing their hands more often, but she said she won't keep them from going to the playground.

"If you spend enough time reading about all the things kids can contract you don't leave the house," she said.

Still, Slavinski said parents should take other precautions.

"Raccoon feces should be removed using gloves and disposable bags, and placed in trash to keep from children," she said.

 

[Rockslinger]

"Raccoon feces should be removed using gloves and disposable bags, and placed in trash to keep from children," she said.

Didn't one of Toronto's garbage collector go blind because the garbage bag burst and he got hit with this shit (literally) in the face?

 

[danmand]

Didn't one of Toronto's garbage collector go blind because the garbage bag burst and he got hit with this shit (literally) in the face?

The Petcoons will be certified free of any worms.