California Condor Making a Comeback

Discussion in 'California Flyway Forum' started by Tuck31, Sep 20, 2017.

  1. West Park

    West Park New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    May 10, 2015
    Location:
    California
    Looks like the Anti-Gun Liberals on the California hunting forum are at it again. Thanks for reminding me of why I moved away from that mess.
     
  2. West Park

    West Park New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    May 10, 2015
    Location:
    California
    People who are supposedly on our side come on here and try to justify why we should let CA take our rights away. Unbelievable.
     
  3. Specktacular

    Specktacular Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    510
    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2016
    This study is a laughable JOKE---just like all the other crap that comes out of Alt-left, anti-hunting UCSC. It further demonstrates your inability to critically evaluate scientific information and the methods used and conclusions reached. There are so many things wrong with that study that I don't even have the time or desire to list them because, as I've said previously, it's a waste of time with you. What's unfortunate though is that some on this forum seem to believe the crap you post simply because you have diarrhea of the mouth and seem to like to see yourself type when, in fact, if they took the time to critically and objectively review the data themselves, they'd see you for the propagandist that you are. If I thought spending the time to educate you would be fruitful, I'd continue. But, it's obvious you can't get beyond your own egotistical arrogance at the expense of hunters.
     
    lamsen95240 likes this.
  4. West Park

    West Park New Member

    Messages:
    23
    Joined:
    May 10, 2015
    Location:
    California
    You're never going to change a Liberal's mind with facts. It's a complete waste of time to try. This isn't about logic, it's about control. They haven't figured out how to take all our guns, so take our ammo, make lead illegal etc.
     
  5. sisqsprig

    sisqsprig Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    499
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Location:
    Northern CA
    Just curious, which of our "rights" have been taken away by the lead ban? Hunting is a privilege, not a right. There certainly is nothing in the constitution that says we're guaranteed the ability to shoot lead.

    And I'm guessing if there was an internet forum back in the days when lead shot was made illegal for waterfowl hunting, this very statement would have been posted by someone arguing against the requirement for non toxic shot. I'm pretty sure waterfowling suffered no long term effects from the ban of lead. Why should we think this will be any different? We need to evolve and adapt to survive. It's a constantly changing (political) world and those that don't adapt will fade away. Those that can adapt will continue to survive.
     
  6. RefugeHunter

    RefugeHunter Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    7,382
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Location:
    Live - Castro Valley - work Pleasanton
    That same statement was posted many times before, during and after the banning of lead shot for waterfowl.

    "Lead doesn't hurt birds, it occurs naturally, blah... blah.... blah...."
    "If you're you're not against the lead shot ban you're a liberal trying to take away our guns...blah... blah.... blah...."

    Same stupid, head up the arse stuff.

    I will repeat myself again:
    As the first conservationists, hunters should have banned lead shot and lead bullets long ago.

    If you can't understand the reasoning behind that you are part of the problem. You need to ask yourself why you like to hunt, you need to read and understand why Teddy Roosevelt, James Audubon and the early conservationists were also hunters. You need to love the natural environment more than your lead bullets.

    Now we just look like a bunch of Neanderthals who want to go out to plunder and pollute the environment. It makes us an easy target.

    I will now return to my hut.
     
  7. sisqsprig

    sisqsprig Senior Refuge Member

    Messages:
    499
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Location:
    Northern CA
    LOL, were there already internet forums in '91? I guess I was late to the game.
     
    ricer man likes this.
  8. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,689
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    Can I get a ruling on this please?

     
  9. J.Bennett

    J.Bennett Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    5,689
    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Location:
    Acampo, California
    You mean like this critical evaluation of scientific information?
    Let's face it, your idea of critically evaluating scientific information starts and ends with your opinion of the one presenting that information.
    OK, don't list them then. Pick one thing wrong with it (other than what you believe the authors' political affiliations to be) and expand on it in a meaningful way. I have a hard time believing that you had enough time to pour over the volumes of data and "critically evaluate" the study, but don't have enough time to list what, in your expert opinion, is wrong with that study.
    I sincerely hope that anyone interested in this topic does take the time to do their own research and objectively look at the data. I have no problem being objective or even admitting when I am wrong and re-evaluating my own opinions. It may surprise you to know that if we were discussing this same issue 10 or 12 years ago, we likely would have generally agreed. It also might surprise you to know that my political ideology is probably the exact opposite of what you as well as most of the folks reading this thread think that it is. In other words, I am looking at it objectively and evaluating the data for what it is, rather than evaluating the political beliefs of the one providing it. Simply put, this is not a political issue to me (or for many others, some of whom have chimed in on this thread) and the only reason that it is a political issue for anyone is because the gun lobby and anti-hunting lobby have made it into one.

    Only one of us is a propagandist, and it isn't me. All I have done is countered erroneous claims with actual data and facts. A propagandist would try to garner support by presenting facts selectively in order to create a perception that furthers his agenda. A good example of this would be how huntfortruth.org points out that the fire tower was painted with lead paint then shows that the isotope ratios found in the condor blood samples fall within the ranges found in lead paint from homes that lead-poisoned children lived in across the country (but not the fire towers). By selectively presenting these facts, they lead many people (even those that claim to be objective and able to critically evaluate data) to incorrectly believe that:
    Huntfortruth.org makes no connection between the paint on the fire towers and the paint from the lead-poisoned kid studies, they leave it to the reader to make that huge leap on their own. A propagandist is also someone who would have no problem with data when he thinks it says this:
    But as soon as it is proven that it actually shows something to the contrary, has no problem changing his opinion of the data to this:
    A propagandist would also try to influence his audience by using loaded language like liberal, alt-left, anti-hunting, etc. in order gain their support. Sound familiar?
     
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2017
    Phytoplankton and Calikev like this.
  10. ducslayer

    ducslayer Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    2,145
    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2007
    Location:
    California
    We are stuck with it! You may as well adapt to it! We are not going to change it! Case closed!
     

Share This Page