Today, I leave anandtech.

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Notice the "or" in there that means it doesn't have to include all of them. Atleast that is my interpritation.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Some of you guys have seriously warped views of reality.

Was drugging it the smart thing to do? No.

Was it animal cruelty? No.

Personally I'd have just shot it, when you live trap a skunk you don't exactly have a lot of options.

BTW nobody TRIES to live trap skunks, he was probably trying to catch a stray cat or something. Once he had trapped it he had a bit of a predicament (which he handled poorly, but not to the point of cruelty).

Some of you city dwellers need to quit being so damn helpless. A trapped skunk is something you can deal with yourself.

Viper GTS

Of course, but you rednecks need to quit killing everything you see.

What he did wasn't necessary and things he said himself very clearly state that he did it for his own enjoyment. How is that not cruel?

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Notice the "or" in there that means it doesn't have to include all of them. Atleast that is my interpritation.

Yeah, it means the OP is free to do ANY one of those options.

 

[GeneValgene]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

yes, this is correct. take in this context includes killing.

you can read here from the El Dorado County, California skunk problem website for more details.

1) Skunks are the primary carrier of rabies in California. Approximately 65 percent of the skunks checked for rabies tested positive for the disease during the past 5 years.
2) Shooting and live trapping can be used to remove skunks from rural areas
3) California state law does not classify skunks as endangered or threatened, nor as furbearers or game animals. There is no season or bag limit on skunks
4) It is against California state law for any wildlife to be kept as pets. Only authorized wildlife rehabilitators may keep injured or orphaned wildlife, and then only for limited periods of time.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Why was he administering drugs?

Anyone can administer drugs to an animal.

Did you know you can order pet meds online & give your cat or dog their shots yourself?

Saves a crapload of money over having the vet do it.

Was drugging the skunk stupid? Absolutely.

That doesn't make it illegal.

Viper GTS

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Again, selective reading does you in, either that or a total brainbusting lack of reading comprehension. He gave it the pills. IT WALKED OUT OF THE CAGE. He did not drag it/force it out of the cage. It walked into the pool. IT DID NOT DROWN. He scooped it out of the pool. IT WALKED AWAY ON ITS OWN. Am i missing something? Where does it say that he abused it? Did he stick an m80 up its ass? No. Did he beat it? No. It walked away to die in its sleep. No different from AC coming to give it a shot of phenobabarbitol in its arm, which would have made it DIE IN ITS SLEEP.

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
OK, everyone defending the OP.

Why do you think they mehod he used to get rid of the pest is humane? For the record, in the original thread he said he gave it 4 or so different pills, and about 3-5 of each, then he released it next to a pool, where it drown to death. I don't know WTF actually happened, but that's what was said in the thread that supposedly got reported.

How is that method humane?

thank you, but i read the original thread. i didn't need your narrative.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

For the dense that means it's open season on skunks.

Nobody is going to bitch about him killing a skunk.

Now if he were burning it alive while trapped in the cage I would have issue with that (as would any reasonable person).

Viper GTS

But you don't have a problem with him administering such a heavy dose of several different kinds of medication intended for humans, waiting for the drugs to take effect, opening the cage to watch it stagger around, watching it fall into the pool, watching it drown, THEN for some odd reason thinking "HOLY SH|T I HAVE TO SAVE ITS LIFE!!" and grabbing the pool-scooper-thingy?

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Notice the "or" in there that means it doesn't have to include all of them. Atleast that is my interpritation.

My God, some of you people are dense.

How about this?

Burrow fumigants such as gas or smoke cartridges may be used in rural areas if the burrows used by skunks can be located and are not under or near buildings. They are not generally recommended for use in residential areas because of the risk of fire and penetration of the gas into buildings. These cartridges are ignited and pushed into the skunk?s burrow. The burrow is then sealed off with soil and packed tightly to prevent the toxic and asphyxiating smoke from escaping. Follow the product instructions carefully.

In rural areas where it is safe to do so, skunks may be spotlighted at night and shot. Since they may spray in the process, be selective in the location chosen for this control method.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Why was he administering drugs?

Anyone can administer drugs to an animal.

Did you know you can order pet meds online & give your cat or dog their shots yourself?

Saves a crapload of money over having the vet do it.

Was drugging the skunk stupid? Absolutely.

That doesn't make it illegal.

Viper GTS

By itself, of course it's not illegal. My point was that you don't have to be a vet to pronounce death and you don't have to be a vet to administer drugs. That's why, when your favorite kitty or doggie dies, you can choose to dig a hole and dump them in the front yard.

However, combined with the other actions he took, I'd say he crossed the line.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

Notice the "or" in there that means it doesn't have to include all of them. Atleast that is my interpritation.

Yeah, it means the OP is free to do ANY one of those options.

I believe that definition is taken way out of context. You are using a definition of take set up to protect animals and use it as your defense in harming animals. Some how I don?t think that is going to fly.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Nik
But you don't have a problem with him administering such a heavy dose of several different kinds of medication intended for humans, waiting for the drugs to take effect, opening the cage to watch it stagger around, watching it fall into the pool, watching it drown, THEN for some odd reason thinking "HOLY SH|T I HAVE TO SAVE ITS LIFE!!" and grabbing the pool-scooper-thingy?

Nope, I have no problem with it.

While his methods were questionable his intent was fine. Sleeping pills are probably more humane than some of the other state encouraged methods of extermination (gassing them in their burrows).

The drowning was just sh!tty luck on behalf of the skunk, he picked the wrong direction to stagger.

Viper GTS

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

For the dense that means it's open season on skunks.

Nobody is going to bitch about him killing a skunk.

Now if he were burning it alive while trapped in the cage I would have issue with that (as would any reasonable person).

Viper GTS

But you don't have a problem with him administering such a heavy dose of several different kinds of medication intended for humans, waiting for the drugs to take effect, opening the cage to watch it stagger around, watching it fall into the pool, watching it drown, THEN for some odd reason thinking "HOLY SH|T I HAVE TO SAVE ITS LIFE!!" and grabbing the pool-scooper-thingy?

You haven't followed my advice. You didn't read.


IT






DID






NOT





DROWN.


He fished it out of the pool and it WALKED THE FVCK away and died somewhere in the woods. Get it?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Again, selective reading does you in, either that or a total brainbusting lack of reading comprehension. He gave it the pills. IT WALKED OUT OF THE CAGE. He did not drag it/force it out of the cage. It walked into the pool. IT DID NOT DROWN. He scooped it out of the pool. IT WALKED AWAY ON ITS OWN. Am i missing something? Where does it say that he abused it? Did he stick an m80 up its ass? No. Did he beat it? No. It walked away to die in its sleep. No different from AC coming to give it a shot of phenobabarbitol in its arm, which would have made it DIE IN ITS SLEEP.

If it walked away, the drugs didn't kill it. They may have possibly worn off. How do you know it's dead?

HEY I GOT A GREAT IDEA

Lets go trapping animals, drugging them, releasing them, watching them disoriented and half-dead, then letting them go? Oh wait, that's being cruel and completely unnecessary.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Nik
By itself, of course it's not illegal. My point was that you don't have to be a vet to pronounce death and you don't have to be a vet to administer drugs. That's why, when your favorite kitty or doggie dies, you can choose to dig a hole and dump them in the front yard.

However, combined with the other actions he took, I'd say he crossed the line.

Nik, I generally respect you, but in this case, not a damn chance. The only mistake ArmenK made in this whole affair was posting about it on ATOT so some nitwit with too much time on their hands can get their panties in a bunch and call the police about something which isn't illegal.

Being the coward the snitch was, somehow I doubt he/she will reveal himself/herself.

 

[labgeek]

Originally posted by: Nik
you rednecks

Ah yes more substance...

 

[BudAshes]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

For the dense that means it's open season on skunks.

Nobody is going to bitch about him killing a skunk.

Now if he were burning it alive while trapped in the cage I would have issue with that (as would any reasonable person).

Viper GTS

But you don't have a problem with him administering such a heavy dose of several different kinds of medication intended for humans, waiting for the drugs to take effect, opening the cage to watch it stagger around, watching it fall into the pool, watching it drown, THEN for some odd reason thinking "HOLY SH|T I HAVE TO SAVE ITS LIFE!!" and grabbing the pool-scooper-thingy?

well it wasnt the smartest move in the world, but i could really give a sh!t if it happened or not. I dont think it required 2 giant threads to discuss, but I guess i understand that people are nuts when it comes to animals.

And that Nik is nuts in general and just argues for the sake of it.

 

[mwtgg]

You know what, I think I'm going to call the police on Nebor. He trapped a squirrel and it released it in a park. It ran into the street and got run over. HOW COULD HE LET THAT HAPPEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT IS CRUEL AND UNNECESSARY!

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Nope, I have no problem with it.

While his methods were questionable his intent was fine. Sleeping pills are probably more humane than some of the other state encouraged methods of extermination (gassing them in their burrows).

The drowning was just sh!tty luck on behalf of the skunk, he picked the wrong direction to stagger.

Viper GTS

You're making assumptions about the OP's motives, as are those on the other side of the argument. If he was so innocent about it, he wouldn't have done things like post about it on AT, take pics and post those, get pissed about being reported, and edit his posts to cover his tracks.

 

[suse920]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Why was he administering drugs?

Anyone can administer drugs to an animal.

Did you know you can order pet meds online & give your cat or dog their shots yourself?

Saves a crapload of money over having the vet do it.

Was drugging the skunk stupid? Absolutely.

That doesn't make it illegal.

Viper GTS

By itself, of course it's not illegal. My point was that you don't have to be a vet to pronounce death and you don't have to be a vet to administer drugs. That's why, when your favorite kitty or doggie dies, you can choose to dig a hole and dump them in the front yard.

However, combined with the other actions he took, I'd say he crossed the line.

If it was a NON threatning animal i would agree, but since it was a skunk i'd say he had every right. I for one would have called Animal Control, but what he did was not cruel. He gave the animal little candies and then released it. It just so happened to wander and fall into the pool. If he threw the cage into the pool this would have been different, but he was trying to help the skunk.

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Again, selective reading does you in, either that or a total brainbusting lack of reading comprehension. He gave it the pills. IT WALKED OUT OF THE CAGE. He did not drag it/force it out of the cage. It walked into the pool. IT DID NOT DROWN. He scooped it out of the pool. IT WALKED AWAY ON ITS OWN. Am i missing something? Where does it say that he abused it? Did he stick an m80 up its ass? No. Did he beat it? No. It walked away to die in its sleep. No different from AC coming to give it a shot of phenobabarbitol in its arm, which would have made it DIE IN ITS SLEEP.

If it walked away, the drugs didn't kill it. They may have possibly worn off. How do you know it's dead?

HEY I GOT A GREAT IDEA

Lets go trapping animals, drugging them, releasing them, watching them disoriented and half-dead, then letting them go? Oh wait, that's being cruel and completely unnecessary.

We've gone over this in both threads California code says the animal could not be released without permission of AC. AC willnot grant said permission because of the risk of spreading disease. California code also states that once trapped on his property the animal could be "taken" (killed, for the dense). He killed it by putting it to sleep. AC would have done the same.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Nope, I have no problem with it.

While his methods were questionable his intent was fine. Sleeping pills are probably more humane than some of the other state encouraged methods of extermination (gassing them in their burrows).

The drowning was just sh!tty luck on behalf of the skunk, he picked the wrong direction to stagger.

Viper GTS

You're making assumptions about the OP's motives, as are those on the other side of the argument. If he was so innocent about it, he wouldn't have done things like post about it on AT, take pics and post those, get pissed about being reported, and edit his posts to cover his tracks.

You'd be pissed if someone reported you for doing something that was completely legal and you had to go through the legal hassle.

 

[suse920]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Again, selective reading does you in, either that or a total brainbusting lack of reading comprehension. He gave it the pills. IT WALKED OUT OF THE CAGE. He did not drag it/force it out of the cage. It walked into the pool. IT DID NOT DROWN. He scooped it out of the pool. IT WALKED AWAY ON ITS OWN. Am i missing something? Where does it say that he abused it? Did he stick an m80 up its ass? No. Did he beat it? No. It walked away to die in its sleep. No different from AC coming to give it a shot of phenobabarbitol in its arm, which would have made it DIE IN ITS SLEEP.

If it walked away, the drugs didn't kill it. They may have possibly worn off. How do you know it's dead?

HEY I GOT A GREAT IDEA

Lets go trapping animals, drugging them, releasing them, watching them disoriented and half-dead, then letting them go? Oh wait, that's being cruel and completely unnecessary.

But he did not do this at all. The skunk was on his property and went into a trap already set up. He didnt go around hunting down skunks to trap and drug.

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Nope, I have no problem with it.

While his methods were questionable his intent was fine. Sleeping pills are probably more humane than some of the other state encouraged methods of extermination (gassing them in their burrows).

The drowning was just sh!tty luck on behalf of the skunk, he picked the wrong direction to stagger.

Viper GTS

You're making assumptions about the OP's motives, as are those on the other side of the argument. If he was so innocent about it, he wouldn't have done things like post about it on AT, take pics and post those, get pissed about being reported, and edit his posts to cover his tracks.

EARTH TO NIK, COME IN NIK. You too are making assumptions about his motives.

I would be pissed because I did nothing wrong. The only difference is, I would not post about it here because of pantywaists like you.

 

[zerocool1]

Originally posted by: OrByte
woah... I wish I knew more about this story, that is, if it isn't SHENS!