Same here. Why is cyanide randomly planted in the wild to kill wild animals? What are they eating that's causing problems? Seems to serve minimal purpose and carry a large risk. If anyone else shoots a wild animal that's eating their trash they could go to jail.
It really depends on the animal. Some, particularly feral hogs, are invasive and incredibly destructive. Humans set them loose, so it's our responsibility to run some damage control.
Federal and state employees use a wide variety of techniques to control feral hog populations, but feral hogs are very prolific. A mature female feral hog can have two litters a year and as much as a dozen piglets per litter. Because the problem is so severe, the general public are often encouraged to help.
As I see it, they're basically an alternative to traps that don't kill quickly leading to animal suffering. They're designed to be really hard to trigger - the design was to have the animal put their mouth on it and pull hard.
This type of society worked back in the pre-Regan days because we had institutions and unreasonably violent/crazy people would get carted off before they could get around to hurting others.
I don't think that's true. People who are mentally ill commit violent crimes at about the same rates as their neighbors. Also, crime rates are lower now than when Reagan took office.
My theory is that what really changed our levels of trust was the invention of 24-hour news. People didn't used to have someone in their ear all day reminding them to be afraid. But tons of other things have changed too, so I may be off base.
> I had the same reaction when I realized I could just buy a fucking flamethrower.
Flamethrowers suck at killing people unlike guns. Not sure they are still used in war?
Is your flamethrower a real one? Does it contain an agent that makes it stick to things like humans? Otherwise it's not really different to a long match that looks cool.
The actually damage landmines do is not really something to joke about.
Barbed wire kills orders of magnitude more people the M44 device (obviously more common)
If you want to look at the real dangers of the M44, heat exhaustion would kill more people laying them than the devices themselves.
The fact in the article a dog was killed is the best they can come up with, means you shouldn't be comparing it to land mines.
It's an effective way of animal control, having people out with guns shooting is also dangerous. In this county where they in the wrong pace and lacking signage? The case to me has not been made it's the M44 fault.
Absolutely! Even assuming that they work, and that they only kill the intended target (already proven false), you're throwing cyanide around - on the ground, and potentially in the groundwater and surface water. If somebody did that on my land I'd be like "Have you lost your mind?"
Well, the good news is, it degrades and has a half-life. The bad news is, it has an other-half-life.
If they worked always exactly as designed all of 0.88g of sodium cyanide should end up in coyote's mouth. And if something ends up outside it should combine with moisture and turn into cyanide gas and float away.
I would be interested in seeing all traps outlawed. As someone who hunts, I see traps as a cruel method to reducing animal populations. They can harm or hurt many unintended people & animals. They're also often not well maintained.
Interestingly enough, the use of toxicants for animal control was made illegal on federal lands in 1972 by Nixon [1] (Executive Order 11643) and then later amended by Ford in 1975 (to specifically allow cyanide bombs) and finally revoked entirely in 1982 by Reagan.
24 comments
[ 5.0 ms ] story [ 80.7 ms ] threadYou ever read an article about something being outlawed and find yourself wondering why they were legal in the first place?
Doing a bit of research, the Wikipedia article gives better information https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M44_(cyanide_device)
As I see it, they're basically an alternative to traps that don't kill quickly leading to animal suffering. They're designed to be really hard to trigger - the design was to have the animal put their mouth on it and pull hard.
Like, on the one hand, awesome! I can own a flamethrower. But on the other hand, society just trusts me to have a flamethrower?
Use it wisely, and preserve it for those after you please.
My theory is that what really changed our levels of trust was the invention of 24-hour news. People didn't used to have someone in their ear all day reminding them to be afraid. But tons of other things have changed too, so I may be off base.
Funding for CA mental health services was higher as Reagan left office than when he took office.
Flamethrowers suck at killing people unlike guns. Not sure they are still used in war?
Is your flamethrower a real one? Does it contain an agent that makes it stick to things like humans? Otherwise it's not really different to a long match that looks cool.
The actually damage landmines do is not really something to joke about.
Barbed wire kills orders of magnitude more people the M44 device (obviously more common)
If you want to look at the real dangers of the M44, heat exhaustion would kill more people laying them than the devices themselves.
The fact in the article a dog was killed is the best they can come up with, means you shouldn't be comparing it to land mines.
It's an effective way of animal control, having people out with guns shooting is also dangerous. In this county where they in the wrong pace and lacking signage? The case to me has not been made it's the M44 fault.
Well, the good news is, it degrades and has a half-life. The bad news is, it has an other-half-life.
[1] https://www.nps.gov/subjects/legal/upload/Proclamations_and_...