Today, I leave anandtech.

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Idiot's Guide to boosting your post count (by Nik):

This thread: 95 replies, 19 by Nik.
Total percentage of posts in this thread by Nik: 20%
Total replies by Nik that were actually considered and accepted as logical and acceptable by the general public: 0

Pretty much par for the course of an average "Nik involved" thread.

Dude, whatever,
I'm not defending him, sometimes I don't agree with Nik sometimes I do. Thats the great part about having a view point, and people having opposite view points.

As well, I see alot more substance in Nik's posts then I do in yours.

Which parts would that be? The ones where he ignore the law and says it's totally opposite of what it is? Or where he's calling the OP names -the weakestlink (sic), "fscking douche bag", idiot, "asshole"? Some real "substance" there...

Funny thing about the law, it that it isn't static, it changes. Are you a lawyer? I don't think so. Their is this funny thing called precident which can change the meaning of what you would consider those words to be. Hell it can differ from state to state judge to judge.

While his posts may contain the above mentioned words they are usually longer and have something more to the with the op then:

Pretty much par for the course of an average "Nik involved" thread.

 

[meltdown75]

see you tomorrow under your new ID. :thumbsup:

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: novasatori
What do you think animal control would have done with it?

They can't relocate it and I find it hard to believe they would have gone around the corner and released it back into a residential area.

Animal Control can't relocate it? For christ's sake they're part of the government. They can do whatever they goddamn want to. They DO relocate animals. It's their job. What part of "Animal Control" do you not understand?

What part of skunks carry rabies and them obviously not wanting them relocated by virtue of having to have written permission to do so, do you not understand? Maybe in your "feel good" mind they'll relocate it. The law as quoted says basically, kill it, you may not relocate it. Why do you have any inkling that they'd do otherwise? Because that's what you'd LIKE them to do?

Because government sees nothing but dollars and it's a lot less money to drive out somewhere, throw the thing in the cage on the truck, drive out somewhere else, and dump it's ass out as opposed to driving out somewhere, throwing the thing in the case on the truck, driving back, moving it to a testing facility, paying folks per hour to take time out of their day to kill this thing, paying for the facilities and equipment to test it for rabies, just to know "yup, this dead skunk had rabies."

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: novasatori
What do you think animal control would have done with it?

They can't relocate it and I find it hard to believe they would have gone around the corner and released it back into a residential area.

Animal Control can't relocate it? For christ's sake they're part of the government. They can do whatever they goddamn want to. They DO relocate animals. It's their job. What part of "Animal Control" do you not understand?

I am no animal control expert BUT I would think that animal control would want to put the animal down, and check it for rabies, that way if the skunk DID have rabies, a notice can be circulated among animal control operators so that any more skunks in the area can be terminated on site.

Thats how they do things, imho. they wouldnt relocate it.

Maybe thats true,
if it is thats all and great
but none of this was ever even considered by the OP he never called Animal control to ask, type it into google. He asked here and it was "dead" (supposedly) before most of these posts were even written

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: HBalzer
In any case it is animal controls job to determine the best course of action.

Exactly.

 

[DurocShark]

Animal control DOES NOT EQUAL Fish & Game

F&G regs overrule AC regs.

Animal would have just removed the animal and destroyed it.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: novasatori
What do you think animal control would have done with it?

They can't relocate it and I find it hard to believe they would have gone around the corner and released it back into a residential area.

Animal Control can't relocate it? For christ's sake they're part of the government. They can do whatever they goddamn want to. They DO relocate animals. It's their job. What part of "Animal Control" do you not understand?

I am no animal control expert BUT I would think that animal control would want to put the animal down, and check it for rabies, that way if the skunk DID have rabies, a notice can be circulated among animal control operators so that any more skunks in the area can be terminated on site.

Thats how they do things, imho. they wouldnt relocate it.

If that's true, that's pretty fvcking sh|tty. Why the hell do we care if it has rabies if it's dead?

Do we just assume that ALL skunks and other wildlife have rabies and kill them all too?

we care if it has rabies because if it does, then there is a high likelyhood that other animals in the area do too, and they are still alive.

unfortunately for skunks, rats, coyote, fox, possums, you name it, that "level" of wildlife isnt as protected as eagles, deer, etc. They get the sh!t job of dialing us humans in on how healthy the local wildlife is.

animal control tests any wild animal for disease, anytime it can.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: novasatori

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: ArmenK

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: ArmenK

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: ArmenK

Originally posted by: novasatori
i thought in the end you said it disappeared? (walked off presumeably?)

This is true.

So which part did you lie about? Were you lying when you said it walked off? Or were you lying when you said that you let it drown in the pool?

1) it walked out of the cage
2) it walked around the house and into the pool
3) I pulled it out with a net within 30 seconds
4) it was gone the next morning

You're completely ignoring the issue and it's obvious that you are. Did it drown in the pool like you said it did, or did you watch it walk away like you said it did?

When did I say I watched it walk away? I mean it walked away when I released it, but it went to the pool and I pulled it out. After that I left it alone until morning at which time it was gone.

So did it come back later and drown? Were you lying about standing there and doing nothing while watching it drown in your pool?

Just because at first he thought it might have drowned, then later it had left his premises does not mean he's a liar.

You're trying to argue something you don't understand the timeline of at all.

1.) he found skunk; trapped it (or it was trapped I'm not sure of this point)
2.) sedated it to try and release
3.) skunk walked over to pool by itself when released (nowhere in any of his posts did he say he tried to drown it or anything as you try to insinuate)
4.) pulled skunk from pool
5.) he >thought< it may have drowned
6.) later it was gone thus must not have drowned

how is that hard to understand?

He's not a vet, so he can't sedate him properly, and based on what he said he gave the skunk, he didn't. Also, they can't be trapped and released.

 

[novasatori]

He doesn't have to call animal control it says that they can be taken for threatening property. IMO that is pretty vague and could be so far as just being on your yard if you have pets or kids present.

If anything OP has learned to next time use a gun.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer

Originally posted by: HBalzer
In any case it is animal controls job to determine the best course of action.

Exactly.

What I finally said something with substance?

 

[tami]

Originally posted by: JasonSix78
Wow, some of you people are so passionate about animals, yet, when it comes to the well being of humans you could care less. It's sad really. I wish you people would use some of that passion to actually do something beneficial to society.

Someone called the five-o on this guy for drugging an animal.....Go to your local animal shelter and ask what they do with unwanted cats and dogs. Ever think about that? Maybe ArmenK should have called one of you animal lovers and asked if you wanted to fly in and adopt the skunk.

-Jason

i completely agree. a few weeks ago, i posted about a beautiful 9-month old puppy needing a home (if he didn't get a home, they'd have to put the pup down as per shelter regulations). there were few who expressed interest, but of the entire population of the site, the number was considerably small and i was rather embarassed that people who love animals so much were barely being active in promoting the thread. i was bumping it up myself. (and no, i can't own pets in my apartment building.)

i felt good for trying, at least.

i also disagree with him being a "sick fvck who likes to abuse animals." i don't think he was laughing about it but rather sharing an experience with ATOT. hell, we do that all the time. it's a community. i guess that the community comes with its bashing as well, sadly enough.

if i had a spider problem, i may try to address it myself rather than wait for some guy to come. we had vultures eating a dead animal on our street early this year, and animal control didn't come for several hours after the call was made.

plus, if the skunk decided to make a stinky, i don't know if you guys realize how awful that stench is. i went to camp for many summers in the mountains as a kid, and boy oh boy, it was awful.

i can understand how and why people take matters into their own hands. this is not to say i am condoning it. still, i am of the opinion of my vet friend (scroll up) that the skunk, if really dead, did not endure pain and therefore it was not "animal cruelty."

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Animal control DOES NOT EQUAL Fish & Game

F&G regs overrule AC regs.

Animal would have just removed the animal and destroyed it in a humane manner.

FIXED.

 

[eigen]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: aircooled
What he did was legal, but I would have taken a different approach and called animal conrol.

LEGAL STATUS
The California Fish and Game Code classifies skunks as nongame mammals. Nongame mammals that are injuring or threatening property may be taken by the owner or tenant of the premises at any time and in any legal manner. Fish and Game regulations prohibit the relocation of skunks and other wildlife without written permission of the Department of Fish and Game. The prevalence of rabies in the skunk population is one of several major reasons for denying relocation. For further information on the legal status of skunks, contact the California Department of Fish and Game.

The Law for the Win.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: novasatori

If anything OP has learned to next time use a gun.

Which sucks. Drugging an animal, even if overdone, is bound to be less painful than a bullet.

Gotta love how everybody thinks they can tell everybody else what to do.

Fscking PC world. :|

 

[MisfitsFiend]

OMG...First, I don't believe some nut called the cops on you!

You trapped a NUICANSE in your yard which posed a serious risk to you, your family, and your neighbors.
You disposed of this said risk.

From some of the posts you would think he decapitated his child! He did not trap his neighbor?s child, he trapped a SKUNK No, I am not an animal hater, but I can delineate between humans and animals.


What other options did he have? None.

Perhaps the animal lovers (I would insert whatever word you would like here - I'm don't want anyone calling the cops on me) would have volunteered to drive to your house, and take the animal skunk to their house so that he could have sprayed their car, bit their family, and shared the rabies wealth.

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: novasatori
He doesn't have to call animal control it says that they can be taken for threatening property. IMO that is pretty vague and could be so far as just being on your yard if you have pets or kids present.

If anything OP has learned to next time use a gun.

And not post about it on a web forum...

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: aircooled
What he did was legal, but I would have taken a different approach and called animal conrol.

LEGAL STATUS
The California Fish and Game Code classifies skunks as nongame mammals. Nongame mammals that are injuring or threatening property may be taken by the owner or tenant of the premises at any time and in any legal manner. Fish and Game regulations prohibit the relocation of skunks and other wildlife without written permission of the Department of Fish and Game. The prevalence of rabies in the skunk population is one of several major reasons for denying relocation. For further information on the legal status of skunks, contact the California Department of Fish and Game.

/thread Nik.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: aircooled
What he did was legal, but I would have taken a different approach and called animal conrol.

LEGAL STATUS
The California Fish and Game Code classifies skunks as nongame mammals. Nongame mammals that are injuring or threatening property may be taken by the owner or tenant of the premises at any time and in any legal manner. Fish and Game regulations prohibit the relocation of skunks and other wildlife without written permission of the Department of Fish and Game. The prevalence of rabies in the skunk population is one of several major reasons for denying relocation. For further information on the legal status of skunks, contact the California Department of Fish and Game.

The Law for the Win.

That doesn't justify what the OP says he did in the original thread. I dont' see where is says citizens can stuff as many drugs down the animal's mouth as they want.

Just because you have the right to kill an animal doesn't mean you can use any method you want.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Animal control DOES NOT EQUAL Fish & Game

F&G regs overrule AC regs.

Animal would have just removed the animal and destroyed it in a humane manner.

FIXED.

It was a humane manner. If the skunk indeed died from the sleeping pills, it was painless.

 

[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?

 

[novasatori]

How is killing a skunk with the use of medication less humane than a bullet to its head ?

I don't see that at all, if anything you seem to be nailing his ass to the wall (if he did indeed intend for it to die) for being too humane to it.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Animal control DOES NOT EQUAL Fish & Game

F&G regs overrule AC regs.

Animal would have just removed the animal and destroyed it in a humane manner.

FIXED.

It was a humane manner. If the skunk indeed died from the sleeping pills, it was painless.

The original thread said it drown to death. How is that humane?

 

[neutralizer]

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. 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?

So what's your alternative?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: eigen

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: aircooled
What he did was legal, but I would have taken a different approach and called animal conrol.

LEGAL STATUS
The California Fish and Game Code classifies skunks as nongame mammals. Nongame mammals that are injuring or threatening property may be taken by the owner or tenant of the premises at any time and in any legal manner. Fish and Game regulations prohibit the relocation of skunks and other wildlife without written permission of the Department of Fish and Game. The prevalence of rabies in the skunk population is one of several major reasons for denying relocation. For further information on the legal status of skunks, contact the California Department of Fish and Game.

The Law for the Win.

That doesn't justify what the OP says he did in the original thread. I dont' see where is says citizens can stuff as many drugs down the animal's mouth as they want.

Just because you have the right to kill an animal doesn't mean you can use any method you want.

oh man. I still dont see how feeding the skunk drugs is inhumane. what other, more humane, method is there?

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: DurocShark
Animal control DOES NOT EQUAL Fish & Game

F&G regs overrule AC regs.

Animal would have just removed the animal and destroyed it in a humane manner.

FIXED.

It was a humane manner. If the skunk indeed died from the sleeping pills, it was painless.

The original thread said it drown to death. How is that humane?

It fell into the pool and the OP scooped it out. It didn't necessarily drown to death. We don't even know if it is dead.