Antihunters set to win!

Anti Trapping
The sierra club
http://ga0.org/indefenseofanimals/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=2853047


http://www.idausa.org/facts/furfacts.html
Logged


I just read those two. In the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies report on best management of trapping reports, p2 they state:

"In all studies combined, nearly 92% of all captures were furbearers. There were no captures of any threatened or endangered species. No people were injured as a result of encountering these traps in the field."

Those web pages only give the bad effects possible with traps and none of the positive. The positive effects outweigh the bad.

Pets shouldn't be loose out in the wild like that either, its a known risk that the owner of the pet took.

Here's a site that says to prevent rabies, do not let your pets run loose, etc. Wild carnivores are a risk. This info. counters the pet problem.
http://www.cfainc.org/articles/rabies.html

Use it, eh? Anybody working on this? Any thoughts?

The anti's are killing hunting in NM, write some letters, eh.
 
Originally posted by Tom:
Hey, are any of you sorry sons of bitches going to write to defend hunting/trapping of livestock on public land?
Click to expand...
Tom,
I am with you on this one.... Let's get them cows off the land....
 
You are master at missquoting. I didn't say that.

defend hunting
defend trapping
defend livestock

I have the word "and"
not "of"

What are you putting in your letter?


http://www.furbearermgmt.org/BMPsSummary2000.pdf is a great summary report. Its from the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, its title has "... Best Management Practices for Trapping in the United States." Lots of good traps that do there job, look at the summary. For all 19 states in the study, no captures of any endangered, not even any threatened species, none. That report is pretty authoritative, I wish I had it earlier.

In the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies report on best management of trapping reports, p2 they state:

"In all studies combined, nearly 92% of all captures were furbearers. There were no captures of any threatened or endangered species. No people were injured as a result of encountering these traps in the field."

Those anti web pages only give the bad effects possible with traps and none of the positive. The positive effects outweigh the bad.

What about trapping animals with rabies and saving people's pets? Maybe more are saved than are lost that way? That would be some data that might counter the pet problem. Pets shouldn't be loose out in the wild like that either, its a known risk that the owner of the pet took.

Here's a site that says to prevent rabies, do not let your pets run loose, etc. Wild carnivores are a risk. This info. counters the pet problem.
http://www.cfainc.org/articles/rabies.html

Use it, eh?

Here's some cool statistics from that:
No people were injured and no endangered species were trapped in that International Fish and Wildlife agency report on best management practices for trapping. They trapped 3,953 furbearing animals in that study. That means we can say with 95 % confidence that the injury rate or the rate of trapping an endangered species or a threatened species is below 69.7 per 100,000 animals trapped.

The disease death rate for US citizens per year is 872 per 100,000 each year according to the CDC. http://www.disastercenter.com/cdc/allcause.html

In other words, each and every person in the US is more than 12 times as likely to die this year from some disease, as anyone is to be injured by a trap. Each person is more than 12 times as likely to die this year from a disease as one endangered animal is to be trapped.

Its over 12 times as lilely you will die due to disease this year than it is that an endangered animal will be trapped based on CDC death rates and that internation fish and wildlife agencies study on best managment strategies for trapping done in 19 states. Its not a big risk, compared to the benefits of trapping.

Its only 9.2 times more likely a nonbearer will be trapped compared to you dieing this year due to any disease if there were as many of those animals as people. So, for every person who dies from disease there would be 9.2 non furbearers trapped. That's only if there were as many non furbearers as there were people, and there are far from it.

Not many animal populations in the US are as high as 31,900,000 according to the US census clock.
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
That's how many animals it would take before the risk of trapping a nonfurbearer by mistake is as high as the risk that a single person in the US chosen at random would die from disease in the next year. Only 31.2 million households in the US have dogs.
http://www.saveourstrays.com/dogdynamics.htm
Its more likely a person would die from disease this year than it is that a household with dogs would have a dog trapped. Not a big risk. Plus, if they are responsible dog owners, the risk is much lower their dog would be trapped.

Responsible dog owners would have way less chance of their dog being trapped than they, the dog owner, would have of dieing from a disease during the next year. A small risk.

These possible risks from trapping are small and that is the worst part of trapping. The benefits of trapping are many and large.
 
Uhhhh Ohhhh..... :(

I already sent the E-mail, urging Chef Kirkpatrick to allow the hunting and trapping of livestock on Public Land. I wish you would have more clear. :confused:

I even used you as a reference, about how important it is to be able to hunt and trap cows.

One thing that confused me, why were we sending an e-mail to Chef Kirkpatrick? Is he somehow assoicated with the New Mexico Cattlemans Association and runs on of those "Beef, it's whats for dinner" campaigns at his restraunt? :confused:
 
Mr. Kirkpatrick, Division Chief
New Mexico Department of Game and Fish
P.O. Box 25112
Santa Fe, NM 87504
ATTN: Wildlife Management Division
[email protected]

The NM game commission is seeking public input this summer, ban trapping on public land, modify it, or keep. They vote in September.

We can send letters to game managers and commissioners. The fish and wildlife guy in charge of furbearers got 200 letters from antis and only 22 from hunters last week.

Its not looking good. Ranchers and hunters use traps.

Responsible pet owners are not supposed to let their pets run around and chase deer and get trapped. If we let them do that, and stop trapping, we'll have more rabies, stray dogs and cats, etc. and less wildlife.

We wrote Chief K. because the anti sight I found was writing him and he gives the commissioners input. If we don't write these people, all of them, they are going to say people want predators, not traps.

US Sportsman's Alliance web page gives the actual commissioners addresses. They vote in Sept.

Chief K. is for wildlife, not beef. At least he is supposed to be, that's his job title. Beef is part of the multiple use though, so if they want predators trapped to, that's good because it helps control the predators eating wildlife.

That 76-81 NM research summary showed 65% on NM fawns eaten by predators. With no fawns, you get no deer. It will be worse if we let them ban trapping.
 
But if you removed all the cows off the land, then you would have healthier places for the deer to live. You would have riparian areas where there would be cover for the fawns.

It looks like we need to begin by trapping/shooting the cows, and then see how the deer vs. Coyote thing works out.
 
Cows and deer don't compete unless things get bad. This is not an issue on how best to repair riparian areas, its about trapping.

Do you want to let them ban trapping?

If a riparian area has to many cows, they are supposed to take the cows out of there, but this is not about repairing riparian areas. This is not about cows or no cows.

Its about trapping.
 
Wouldn't there be far more animals to trap, if you had healthy riparian areas? With the huge majority of BLM lands in poor condition due to grazing, it is only logical to start trapping/shooting the cows.

What good is the right to trap, if you only have cows on the land??? Unless you can trap the cows.
 
They've invented this stuff called barbed wire. Down here we even have federal funds to use this stuff, barbed wire, to keep the cattle out of the riparian areas toward the top of the stream, 1, 2, and 3 water stream sources on those topo maps with the dotted lines for water drainage. Those areas can get federal funds to protect the riparian area, and hence, all down stream areas.

We have the cattle so people in the USA can eat, so they haven't decided to get rid of them yet.

So, what did you say in your letter?
 
I wonder what the protien source for the American populas would be if cows were ever banned from U.S. soil?
It would have to be big and rabbits wouldn't do it, not enough people like those. Plant life wouldn't fit the bill enough either. I guess they could all hunt and really put a burden on the wildlife population.
This was just a thought that popped in because a few of you want to get rid of cows entirely.... ;)
 
Elkcheese,

Have you ever had a clue? Who wants to get rid of cows entirely? C'mon now, you didn't forget to wear your hard hat again, did you???
 
Just as I thought, you have nothing. So instead put up very empty, same old comments, to make it look as if you know all, thats very shallow... ;) I see you must have put a lot into that last comment since it is about all you can come up with any more, or silence past any of my posts.....

It is sad to live in a box and be so afraid of others that can see farther than the edges of your world to see the larger picture of what is really going on...
 
Uhhh....Cheese,
It was you that was imagining that somebody was gonna git rid of all them thar cows.... Just like they done got rid of your Clues....
 
There's 290 million Americans. Say we eat 1/4 lb of meat per day. That's 72.5 million lbs/day. Say you get 1000 1/4 lbers from a cow?

72,500,000 hamb./day / 1,000 hamb./cow =

72,500 cows/day. We probably need all the cows we can get.

Who's writing a letter?

Just say your a New Mexico sportsman and ask that they continue to support trapping on public land. Its good for wildlife, livestock, and people.

They might ban trapping in the whole state of New Mexico in their Sept. 22 vote, if we don't write in.
 
OK, 72,500,000 / 2,400 is 30,208+ cows / day.

That's a lot of cows, even just eating 1/4 lb/day. / 24 hours that's

1,250 cows / hour,

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year,

10 years a decade, 10 decades a century, 10 centuries a millenium,

then we do a Y3K adjustment if we haven't run out of cows yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J_Woulfe
Comparison of Resident Opportunities in Different States
Replies
7
Views
680
SFC B
SFC B
Pucky Freak
Why so little support among hunters for growing game populations?
2 3
Replies
52
Views
2K
WildWill
WildWill
Elktrack
Colorado wolves….
Replies
13
Views
2K
Smallwood1972
S
elkduds
CPW Roundtable official summary for 7/22/23 meeting
Replies
9
Views
1K
CptCasual
C
FREAK
New Product Idea - Shooting Stick Platform - PoleX
2 3
Replies
48
Views
3K
Sawtooth
Sawtooth

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,617
Messages
2,026,812
Members
36,245
Latest member
scottbenson

Share this page

Back
Top