Dont poison the wildlife...ill shoot'em

In late January, Trout Unlimited, a national conservation organization, brought a small but hardcore group of hunters and anglers from four Rocky Mountain states to Washington to protest an energy bill whose provisions include opening up Western public lands to oil and gas drilling.

http://www.walkermn.com/placed/index...tory_id=169385

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+


if protecting or economy from the whims of those dammed arabs means drilling our own oil...hell gimme a B.A.R. and a nest of squirels anyday. it just ruins all the fun of following a blood trail only to find "my" deer going threw its death throws in a pit of oily mud. ****! let somebody else dirty their land so i can drive my SUV out here to enjoy the beauty of god's good nature. </sarcasm>

I don't know how many hunters you personally know, but if you know any that think that way I would be ashamed of them as well.

I am a hunter, I've taught my children to hunt. I teach Hunter Education, actually it should be titled how not to get lost or die from exposure in the woods, the actual hunter education portion is about 10 percent of the course.

Most hunters I know care deeply about the wilderness, we don't want shopping malls or urban sprawl. We care when a bunch of testosterone driven mountain bikers ride over just thawed trails and destroy them. We pay for conservation.

The difference between hunters (and fishermen) and the rest of the nature lovers is that the fees from fishing & hunting licenses, excise taxes on hunting and fishing equipment pay for wildlife conservation while all of the "nature lovers " run their mouths, dis everyone else and pay NOTHING for their use of the wilderness.

I also don't know how many blood trails you've followed but I'll tell you it's not fun. If you care about the animal that you are hunting, you try to select the best shot that minimizes a blood trail. Once the animal is bleeding other predators are tracking it as well. I've passed on more shots than I can count. The deer that I take suffers less than the cow that provided your last Big Mac.

I've met more nutcase "environmentalists" than I have hunters. Like an idiot from PETA who dresses up as a deer and walks around on first day of deer season looking to provoke a scene.

Hey Hey,

This is my first post in Cosmos in a long time, but this thread caught my attention.

I grew up in Northern Ontario, so I love and enjoy the outdoors and the wilderness. I'm against hunting with a gun of any sort, not because of the killing of the animals but because I'm 100% against guns and their existence. I know many people that hunt, in fact almost everyone I know has been hunting/fishing at one point or another. Some with guns, some with bows, and well the fishermen with nets and fishing rods. They are some of the most caring people I've met when it comes to the wilderness. They never hunt more than they will eat and they're never brutal about the kills.

The difference between an oil company and a hunter is that the hunter will take what he needs (no one can say he doesn't need it, he could buy his meat from the store... but your killing an animal either way, this one is just tastier). The oil company will polute the area and kill everything in sight, this can't be beneficial to anyone. Although I have seen hunters that act in ways like Tedob1 has described. In Northern Ontario you get a lot of Americans (no I'm not just saying this because of my Anti-American feelings) who come up to hunt bear and what not, and they kill everything in sight. They're the rich, greedy slobs who could care less, and it's atrocious how they act, I'm sure there are Canadian hunters that do the same, but for the majority of hunters, they care about what's going on.

I for one would rather see a group of hunters going through the bush, than the waste of an oil company. It's one thing to kill a few animals for meat, but to destroy all of nature.... what's left for us to enjoy then? Some of my fondest childhood and teenage memories are roaming through the bush behind our houses. I took part on my High schools environmental team every year, learning to identify birds and their calls, fish, tracks, scat, trees, soil, how to test soil, how to age trees, how to measure a tree... all that fun stuff. Half of our courses and lectures were taught by anglers, hunters and trappers. They care about nature, they care about what's going on and they want to preserve it. The oil company cares about one thing. The bottom line.

Peace,
HT

As an outdoors men and hunter myself I am disguested by our current goverments distruction of the enviroment for personal gain.....if you want to be free of forgin oil be free of oil, there are viable alternatives allread look at biodeasile

Hey wait, I thought the war in Iraq was about oil, so supposedly we have all the oil in the world we need right? Since the syndicate owns Iraq now? Or am I wrong in that thinking?


We can fantasize all we want about alternative fuels and cater to the thinking, they are here, we must use them. But they aren't, there is no technology on the planet that can sustain the engergy needs of idustrial cultures outside of fossile fuels. It's coming and I wish America had invested more money and effort in mass transit like the EU. You can quote me prototype technologies all day that are very interesting, but I challenge the idea that fossile fuels can be relaced anytime soon. And it's not just fuel we use as byproducts.

roadclosed look at biodeisel...most company fleets in my area, as well as farms and public buses run on the stuff...you can power any car that has a desile engin with the stuff. Clean competitive priced, and the biproduct in making it can be resold (glycerin) (you can get the needed materials from a local fast food joint.) and i have seen indipendent gas stations carrying the stuff, depending on your area its allread mixed into conventional desiel to keep the prices down. Hell some guys have figured out how to get the stuff up to aviation grade.
http://www.biodiesel.org/resources/faqs/

This combined wit hthe continuing drop in price of refineing organic material into petrolium is going break the OPEC strangle hold on the US.

Biodesiel looks promising, so forgive my bias, I have seen other fules come and go over the years. If they can figure out a way to get the price down or if petroleum continues to skyrocket then that fiction could become a reality. We'll all be driving diesels. To my understanding only modified vehicles can use it's petroleum free versions. Otherwise the mix is around 80 percent petroleum and 20 percent bio. All the comparisons I see on emissions are based on diesel, which is already a very dirty fuel. Anything related to gasoline would be helpful. It's been around for a few years now, seems to be growing and is cleaner than pure diesel. If it's ever going to be a true fuel alternative, we'll be reliable on countries that produce soybeans. ;) <--- joke.

its not tha tan engin needs t obe modified to run biodesil...just cleaned, it acts as a solvent and breaks free all the crud that the desil has deposited on the engin and hoses over the years. If you don't clean it first your filters get gummed up.

The other option comeing ot the forefront is biogenerated petrolium...there is a group makeing chickens/turkys into patrolium..so far it hasn't been cost effective but as the price of oil goes up and the efficency of the process gose up it will be soon.

One of the biggest problems is that alternative energy research was more or less stagnant from about 1960 till fairly recently. Mainly thanks to the international oil lobbies. This more or less means we have lost about 30 years of development during which we may have found other efficient alternatives.
I don’t think that we could have found a complete substituted for petrol in that time but the world may have been a little less dependant on the oil producing countries.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren’t most of the oil reserves in the United States more or less well mapped out and the only reason they have not been exploited is because it was official government policy to hold them as a strategic reserve.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by RoadClosed
If it's ever going to be a true fuel alternative, we'll be reliable on countries that produce soybeans. ;) <--- joke.

---

You have never driven through the corn bealt have you...all those feilds that are not currently growing corn have soy beans, we are one of the worlds largests producers.......it disturbing that soy sells so well.


MURACU: the oil/energy companies can see the writing on the wall, the national pertroial markiting association supports biodesil, and most major power companies are running wind farms in the midwest.

Actually I have been all over the midwest especially around the time when soybeans really started to take off because it was becoming more profitable. There are tons of the stuff; miles and miles, even hundreds of miles. I wonder though, how much soybeans it would take to fuel a society of our capacity? Is it possible?

Right now even the most used bio fuel seems to be the B20 variety, you still need 80 percent of that to contain petrolueum based additive. Anything else, such as the B100 requires modification outside of just giving it a good cleaning in a current engine. And all the above still emit more toxins harmful to life than gasoline. But it seems to be a good viable future alternative.

bballad : That is more or less what I am saying. The oil and energy concerns can see the writing on the wall because it is coming at them at an ever increasing speed. I am not sure what the estimations are but I think there is enough oil to keep us going till about 2100 at our present rate of consumption. After that we will have no other choice but to use other forms of energy production.
As far as I can tell over here in Europe, or at least in France, petroleum substitutes are not that well developed. On the automobile side of things electric cars are the way we seem to be going. There is no direct pollution (except for the batteries) and the infrastructure is easy to put into place. The main problem is they have autonomy of only about 100km (60 miles) so they are not much good for out of city use. Then next generation should have double that which should make them more viable for rural use.

Marcu, I believe also that perhaps electric movement is our future. It is true there is around 100 or 200 years of oil left by what I have learned over the years. Fuel isn't the only think that oil is used for, polymers are one. Without oil the plastics used in the car and the battery could not be possible. There are plastics available from renewable resources and plastic can be recycled but at the rate humans utilize plastic, it is not currently possible to sustain the demand without oil. That is only ONE byproduct of oil. This is one reason why I was always so pissed off at political fanatics who systematically dismantled and tore down the ability to conduct nuclear power initiatives. It's one of the issues that turned me to the dark side of conservative politics. One of many. :)

I would question the numbers one how much oil we have left, some long abandond depositis have been refilling...and places like Il in the midwest are filled wit hoil that is currently too expensive to purify

I was speaking of world wide terms. The US has been on a decline in oil production since the 70s. Here are a link of some essays collected at Stanford . Everyone has their own idea on when oil production will peak, the range covers decades. Once the peak is determined and we cross it, one can calculate the decline rate and predict the end of earth's oil supply. But as the last 20 or 30 years have proved, technology keeps slowing the decline rate and will continue to do so as more effort is placed on alternative and renewable fuels. (my take)