The St. Helens Pilot

[Guest Blackdog]

Yes please do. The one thing you don't understand is that we are part of the eco system. Anything we develop to give us an advantage is as natural as the hunting tactics that developed in any other animal.

I suggest you find another TV channel to watch other than the Green Channel.

[Incorrigible1]

You forgot Claymore mines.

[Guest nycBig]

hahah, good one Blackdog, but not a direct hit. I just think hunting would be more fun with your bare hands, thats all? and can you really justify baiting with cameras. How the heck does the even require any skill?c'mon now people

[Guest Blackdog]

I gather you don't hunt. That's fine, to each his own.

I've never baited with a camera, not sure how that's done.

Never hunted with big game with my bare hands either, sounds like a good way to get hurt or killed.

There are discussions in the hunting community about fair chase, but since you don't hunt I don't think you have the qualifications to join the discussion just as I'm not qualified to discuss whether or not installing security cameras on every street corner in NYC is an invasion of privacy or a moral obligation to protect citizens, I might have an opinion but I don’t live there so I can't tell people what is fair or not.

[Guest]

Someone tell the chimps to quit using twigs to eat termites. And not more rocks to open nuts. It's cheating. No tools.

Seriously, all animals have natural weapons. Our only natural weapon is our brain. Otherwise we're just fodder.

Now, if you want them to manage wildlife properly we're going to have to release some big predators in to some populated areas. I vote cougars. They aren't dangerous to humans at all. Perfect solution.

Really, you can't have it both ways. Either we all go stone age or we live like we do now. Over population of deer. Natures solution? Wolves feed well and their population grows until they level out with the deer in a safer ratio or whatever caused the jump in population goes away and the deer starve. You don't think they should starve, so natures other option is a predator. In lue of unleashing a pack of wolves in to semi-populated areas you have to find a different predator. Man.

[Guest]

Hunting these days is anything but natural: thermal cams, trail cams, remote cams, nightvision glasses, gps tracking, scent masking, baiting, decoys, electronic calls, ghillie suits , tree stands, exploding bullets, laser targets, spray bullets ...should i go on?

The devices/technology used does not matter. HowEVER something is hunted is not the discussion. The discussion was between natural or un-natural. And hunting is natural. Deer starving because of starvation caused by over-population "natural". The difference is that instead of deer, or other animals being left to follow "nature" and starve, WE follow nature and eat them. Simple, really.

Edited October 1, 2010 by WTB1

[Guest nycBig]

dont want to derail thread, as I said I am not against hunting all together, but I definitly think it has its problems and corruption...and baiting with cameras is baiting animals usually bears and using trail cameras to detect what time of day they are taking the bait and then showing up the next time with a gun, as bears are very punctual, unfortunate for them. And again overpopulation does not happen in nature by its own doing, it is a result of rampant development of a lot of land in a short period of time.

[Will]

dont want to derail thread, as I said I am not against hunting all together, but I definitly think it has its problems and corruption...and baiting with cameras is baiting animals usually bears and using trail cameras to detect what time of day they are taking the bait and then showing up the next time with a gun, as bears are very punctual, unfortunate for them. And again overpopulation does not happen in nature by its own doing, it is a result of rampant development of a lot of land in a short period of time.

For me NYC its more of a chore now. I mostly hunt out west for enjoyment.

Around here where I live if the deer aren't taken, nature will take its course

What that means is, its more humane to take some for the sake of the species. As humans our role is to manage. We are hard wired for that.

Thats fine if you can't do it. But IMO we need to celabrate those that take on that task. You would not want to see starvation and disease (witch is nature)take over.

Take a forest for example. If you don't manage it. Disease, fire, invasive species will take over. For me thats just a waste.

[Guest dozy]

Hunting these days is anything but natural: thermal cams, trail cams, remote cams, nightvision glasses, gps tracking, scent masking, baiting, decoys, electronic calls, ghillie suits , tree stands, exploding bullets, laser targets, spray bullets ...should i go on?

I hear this argument a lot these days; the idea that somehow 'unnaturalness' is the cause of much of our problems.

The trouble with that line of thought is that it presumes the existence of a rigidly-defined criterion of demarcation that somehow separates the 'natural' from the 'unnatural'. There is no such criterion, and there is no such definition. In fact, Nietzsche argued over a hundred and thirty years ago that the idea of 'unnaturalness' is an unjustifiable illusion. Whether his argument is correct or not, the point remains: Unless you have the ability and the definition to separate 'natural' from 'unnatural', you should refrain from using the concept as the cornerstone of an argument, as the inability to define something makes its value as the delineating basis of an argument worthless.

[Guest]

And again overpopulation does not happen in nature by its own doing, it is a result of rampant development of a lot of land in a short period of time.

False. Overpopulation and die offs with constant swinging between the two are the natural state of things. The idea of the "balanced" ecosystem is a mathematical construct.

[Guest ShadowPrime]

What I can't understand is the rationale for a govt/military "coverup" of Bigfoot.

I mean, with UFOs, aliens, etc, the theory is that the government would believe the public would panic, OR that the government is somehow in league with the aliens and news of government cooperation in abductions, etc, just wouldn't sit well witht he public. Just saying, whatever one thinks of the topic, the likelihood, etc, I think the rationale is at least... understandable. Panic, fear, etc.

But with Bigfoot?

If, for example, it was announced that BF bodies had been recovered after the Mt St Helens eruption - whats the "downside" to the government? Whats the alleged driver for them to try to keep it all hushed up?

Shadow

[Guest]

I hear this argument a lot these days; the idea that somehow 'unnaturalness' is the cause of much of our problems.

The trouble with that line of thought is that it presumes the existence of a rigidly-defined criterion of demarcation that somehow separates the 'natural' from the 'unnatural'. There is no such criterion, and there is no such definition. In fact, Nietzsche argued over a hundred and thirty years ago that the idea of 'unnaturalness' is an unjustifiable illusion.

I disagree. It may be difficult to deliniate in a mathematically or grammatically precise manner, but there IS such a thing as "natural" vs "unnatural".

First, to dispense with the shibboleth that because man is an animal, and animals are a part of nature therefore everything man does is "natural" is circular logic and borderline rhetorical sophistry.

I'll ask forbearance in advance, I have to come at my concept sideways to make the point:

Two factors go into whether or not something is "natural" or "unnatural". The first is whether or not the thing or act is a product of self executing processes that operate without outside intervention based on the application of intellect.

Example: one plant pollenating another plant with windblown pollen or being pollenated by bees acting on instinct is "natural".

A plant being pollenated by hand by a person who deliberately chooses pollens to incorporate specific desired characteristics in the resulting plant is "unnatural". Even MORE "unnatural" is man gene-gineering the plant with completely foreign dna or artificial dna to induce desired characteristics (GM crops).

The second (and I hold more important) factor is "impact", for want of a better term.

Example: a predator wants to eat, so it hunts prey. In the hunting, it expends x amount of energy for y amount of food. There is a relatively stable relationship between X and Y, favoring Y slightly (or else the predator dies, as it expends more energy in the hunt than the resulting food gives back).

Now apply the effects of intelligence to artificially re-figure the x/y balance. At a primitive level, x amount of effort may yeild 1.5 times y food, instead of 1 y worth of food (chimps with sticks digging for ants). The environment can absorb this slight unnaturalness because it always maintains a surplus of y (which is why there is more plant biomass than animal biomass, and more plant eaters than meat eaters or omnivores). Furthermore, Y is a regenerative factor.

At the level of man, the y multiplier skyrockets dramatically from 1.5y to 15y, or 150y, or 1500y, and so forth. This is why societies with agriculture and animal husbandry can be larger than hunter/gatherer societies (the ability of fewer and fewer people to produce enough food for all). The problem lies in that that y multiplier has so far outstripped the surplus of y in the environment at any one moment in some cases, but also the ability of y to regenerate itself.

No amount of chimps with sticks are going to wipe out ants from the planet. But a relatively small number of men CAN wipe out a species because of their technological edge (as in the near elimination of the Buffalo, for example, or the idea that it was hunting pressure from early man that put an end to the mammoth or at a minimum greatly sped up the process).

Please note that in the above, I use numbers for illustrative purposes only. They are not the product of some mathematical formula (though I'm sure ecologists have such formulas).

[Guest]

What I can't understand is the rationale for a govt/military "coverup" of Bigfoot.

I mean, with UFOs, aliens, etc, the theory is that the government would believe the public would panic, OR that the government is somehow in league with the aliens and news of government cooperation in abductions, etc, just wouldn't sit well witht he public. Just saying, whatever one thinks of the topic, the likelihood, etc, I think the rationale is at least... understandable. Panic, fear, etc.

But with Bigfoot?

If, for example, it was announced that BF bodies had been recovered after the Mt St Helens eruption - whats the "downside" to the government? Whats the alleged driver for them to try to keep it all hushed up?

Shadow

One big driver: The Endangered Species Act. Consider what happened with the so-called "Southern Spotted Owl". The timber interests would never stand for locking up the whole of the PNW (or any other region) as reserved habitat for BF.

[Guest]

One big driver: The Endangered Species Act. Consider what happened with the so-called "Southern Spotted Owl". The timber interests would never stand for locking up the whole of the PNW (or any other region) as reserved habitat for BF.

not to mention all the camping, fishing, hunting business that would crash from people not going in the woods anymore, even the national parks system might take a dive......

if it where to be known as real today, a lot of things would change...a 9 foot tall apeman crusing through our woods that could be behind every tree.....

im sure some would go after it, but most wouldnt want to be near it in a natural setting, I.E. apex predator setting....

[Guest]

I googled Mt St Helens Salvage Logging and found a really cool web site put up be a Weyerheauser guy. 183 pictures including helio ones. Sorry, I forget how to do the link thingy. They do say that bodies were flown out but they don't say what kind of bodies. The first load of logs off the mountain occured within 3 months of the blast and worked up to 600 loads per day. To put 600 loads per day in perspective: THAT'S A WHOLE FREAKIN' LOT OF TIMBER!!!!!! 1MMBF/ 5MBF/LD = 200 LDS/MMF * 3 = 3 million board feet per day. Not knowing log prices at the time, I'll make a complete stab in the dark and say $150 net/MMF to timber owner = $450,000 per day. That's a lot of Top Ramen.

Speaking of the big W, I read in one of my trade magazines that they're paying out a 5 billion (yep, with a dividend next quarter. Maybe I should trade my crappy Citigroup shares for Weyerheauser. (too late for the dividend though)