Re: Giant Squid caught on film

[Guest guest]

" Meals on wheels " LOL!

I have always thought it very disrespectful of humans to film and gawk at

animals in their private moments without their consent. I always try not to

do to an animal what I wouldn't want done to myself. Very simple rule. All

they want is to be left alone. Why is that so hard?

Inger

Re: Giant Squid caught on film

I watched a very interesting programme about animals attacking

humans - some humans survived others didn't - it was interesting

though :-)

There was one place where humans lived quite happily alongside

tigers/lions (can't remember exactly which) - they just didn't go

roaming around alone at night (the humans) - during the day the

tigers/lions mostly slept.

Another guy was attacked riding his push bike home (and survived) - I

couldn't help but think 'meals on wheels' :-) yeah sick I know.

The most stupid human was story of guy who went to safari park with

girlfriend in car and it was mating season for lion and this was

fairly obvious from lion's behaviour.

The lion obviously didn't want watching (can't say I blame it) so it

let out a major roar towards this guy as warning - stupid human

didn't take this warning. So then lion did mock run at the car as

warning - human still didn't get it - was busy trying to make porn

lion film with cam corder (please how stupid can you get?). Finally

lion had had enough and charged at car smacking into it - fortunately

for stupid human it's head would not fit through window.

Now take a comparisment - if this said human was trying to have sex

with girlfriend how would he like it if someone he did not know came

into his teritory with mate to try and film him? I think he might

behave in similar fashion to lion too - maybe he would not give as

much warning though?

>

> In a message dated 9/28/2005 6:52:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> megaknee@b... writes:

>

> Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress for

> civilisation. Why do the media never think that PC to say? A

> provocative British TV voice, son, has said it about

great

> white sharks, though. I think trying to conserve sharks and make

their

> image more cuddly, or Bengal or Siberian tigers or Australian

> crocodiles, is calculated murder and in its superstition the modern

> counterpart of human sacrifice. The most basic act of self-defence

for

> any intelligent species is to exterminate its own non-intelligent

> predators ASAP. Humans' completely irrational reluctance to favour

> this is cause for despair that we (they?) have still not completed

> their emeregcne asan intelligent species.

>

>

>

>

> Squid and great whites and other sharks aren't predators of humans.

They

> live in the water and we live on land. Even with the millions of

humans that

> swim in the oceans every year, only a few are killed by sharks.

>

> On the other hand, there are predators on land that cause problems.

People

> in some countries live alongside lions and tigers and some people

are killed.

> Even so, those animals haven't been killed off yet. What is

endangering those

> animals isn't that they kill people, but because some people think

their meat

> and other bits give the consumer virility and sexual prowess, also

the greed

> of the people who actually hunt those animals. (Though I can see

how tiger

> meat at over $700 per pound and probably 200 pounds of it per

tiger would be a

> major attractor to poor folks with gun in those areas.)

>

> Here in the states there are few predators left. There are mountain

lions in

> a few places, but they weren't a danger until people started

crowding up into

> the hills with them. Bears are sometimes a problem but again

mostly because

> people get in their way.

>

> Now, if there was some kind of critter out there that was both

common and

> really dangerous to humans there would be a press to kill them off.

Imagine

> this. Right now, people even in the big cities aren't too upset

with all the

> rats living alongside them. Now, imagine that somehow rats, or a

portion of

> them, mutated into something else. That something else would

include greater

> cunning, group behavior, and a taste for fresh meat. If creature

like that came

> to be and were attacking people in the streets or in their homes,

you can bet

> that there would be a major push to wipe them out ASAP.

>

>

FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and

acceptance. Everyone is valued.

Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the

folder marked " Other FAM Sites. "

[Guest guest]

OK folks. I posted this article because it was of scientific interest. It was not intended to become a slugging match between a few members. This needs to stop. I do not want to close this topic to discussion because it is something several members seem to find interesting, myself included. So for now, consider this a advisement to take a deep breath and carefully consider posts for a bit.

[Guest guest]

>

> Not simple at all. It means some deaths while the learning process is

> going on.

Yes, very simple. Nowadays there are thousands of ways to learn about

how crocodiles and alligators behave.

>

> Self defence isn't murder. While self-defence doesn't justify

> preemptive massacres of human groups, an intelligent creature where

> each knows what they are doing and have personal moral choice,

> carnivorous animals don't have moral knowledge or intelligent choice

> they only have hunting instincts to follow mechanically.

BS. Animals react very intelligent. They also do have morals, although

they differ quite a lot from ours. You are obviously not around animals

a lot if you din't know that.

>

> I expect our morals to include keeping children safe.

Which is done by teaching them respect for animals and hiow to behave

around them!

>

> Nature is full of horrible violence. Apart from a few symbiotic

> partnerships every species is out for itself at every other species'

> expense. We can only do better towards the remainder of nature other

> than the species who would direct violence at us.

That's, again, BS. Lots of species live peacefully next to each other. A

good example are the herds in Africa and partially Asia made up of lots

of different species and subspecies.

The only species directing violence at us are we ourselves. Everything

else are isolated incidences. If you want to " keep the children safe " I

suggest killing all the humans first.

>

> They are when there's a sinking.

>

Sinkings aren't caused by animals, unless, of course, someone has been

incredibly stupid.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

Hi Maurice,

My opinion is that the more you learn about " dangerous " animals, the

less you have reason to have a blanket fear of them.

All animals can be dangerous, but, except in a few cases, land

animals in particular do not seek out humans for food, and if they

attack, it is usually for a valid reason, such as protecting their

young, which may be hidden from view, or, if they feel threatened,

protecting themselves.

There was a case just this year about a zoo keeper who wandered into

the lion habitat accidentally while three lions were still in there.

Two attacked. The result was superficial bite wounds and a few cuts.

Now if you know anything about the capability of these animals, this

woman got off easy.

Lions can eviscerate you with one swipe of their paw if they so

desire, and they can crush your neck and vertebrae with their teeth.

Yet it seemed as though the lions were merely trying to protect

themselves. After they saw the victim was helpless, they stood back

and waited to see what would happen next. Other keepers drove them

off with fire extinguishers and that was that.

I have read stories about leopards going into people's houses and

stealing people out of their beds as they slept. These are true and

documented accounts, but in these cases they had either poor teeth,

or had developed a taste for human flesh after adjacent wars or

famine had left bodied rotting out of doors.

In short, if you don't come near dangerous animals, noone gets hurt,

so there should be areas that are fenced off and left alone so no

more " man vs. nature " events happen.

As for sea creatures such as sharks attacking man is

concerned...well..you take a risk every time you get in a boat.

Humans are not designed to be sea creatures. If we were, the gills

we had in the womb would stay with us after birth and more people

would be born with webbed fingers.

You go out on the sea and your boat could get swamped by a wave or

caught up in a hurricane. You could fall out of the boat and drown.

A shark could attack. But the way I see it is that if you went out

on the sea, where you are not naturally adapted to be in the first

place, then you are taking a foolish risk and assume all liability

for what happens.

That is what I feel whenever I go river rafting, snorkling, or

swimming, or when I used to go fishing by the way.

I don't see any reason why any species has to be wiped out for our

benefit. In reality, we are symbiotic with every organism on earth

in one way or another, and wiping out a species because it poses a

danger is really endangering us when we sever symbiotic links.

Tom

>or with idiot campers/swimmers who ignore all caution and

> safety measures.

Better safe than killed. Safest to wipe out the source of the danger.

[Guest guest]

Most

> of these animals were simply minding their own business, sitting in

> camoflauge as humans unknowingly approached. The animals mistakenly

> assume that the humans can see them,

I rest my case.

No matter what is the balance of what often or usually happens,

everything every replier has said since I was last here involves

choosing to accept non-zero risks to life. That's all I can and will say.

[Guest guest]

Evan, Collisions, with objects or animals, are within our power to use

logic to avoid. Being eaten isn't: all tactics towards keeping the

animal's behaviour sweet are ultimately a gamble. Animals who aren't

aggressing at you don't go looking to cause collisions deliberately,

and that difference is not merely moral, it's practical to how in

control of the situation you are.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/30/2005 5:14:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, csparania@... writes:

> Ah, Maurice, Maurice, from the mouths of boobs >> This is an example of what is not acceptable on this site. While > probably meant in jest, it would very likely be taken as a personal > attack by the person it is addressed to. Such comments serve no useful > purpose in a discussion. Let's not have any more of this.> > Uhm.. could anyone explain this to me? I didn't get it *ultimate Aspie moment*Lwaxy

Sure. It is ok to directly address a person on here. It helps to keep a conversation flowing if people have some idea as to who a comment is directed. Addressing someone up front does not mean it is a private message that no one else can read, it just means you have something to say you want them to pay attention to.

However, using their name twice could be seen as condescending. In English anyway, it implies that one is dealing with the person in a patronizing manner. That is to say that one considers them inferior mentally.

"From the mouth of boobs," is also inappropriate. Boob, among its other meanings, is a silly, foolish person. Therefore by saying this, one is clearly saying you think the other person is an idiot.

This would be considered in appropriate under our rules.

I can see how an Aspie could have trouble with this kind of thing. That was why the admonission and not anything harsher.

Hope this helps,

[Guest guest]

Evan,

Around here was have deer that run out into the roads, usually at dusk and into the evening when it is bloody hard to see them. Lots of injuries and stuff. Funny thing is, as much as people have changed the land over the last few hundred years, there are more deer now than 200 years ago. A lot of this is because of all the fields. The devils come in and eat at the edges of the fields. Also, the open ground and how we are taking better care of the forests causes more undergrowth in the forests. The deer have more to eat than they ever have.

This is also a problem for other animals. The more the deer population grows and spreads, the greater the decline in smaller animals. What happens is that the deer come in and eat up all the best vegetation, leaving the scrub for other animals. Those other animals either have to move on or starve to death.

It is also bad for the plant life. There has been a decrease in biodiversity in the understory, but it is not due to human activity. It is the deer and their voracious appetites. As I mentioned above, they will eat the choicer stuff, often before it completes its reproductive cycle. Sure the same plant may grow back, but if new ones aren't started, then there eventually it dies out in that area.

I think the problem is that the hunting sules were skewed. Hunting is used to control the population, but most of the hunting is of bucks (males). Deer aren't monogamous, but instead the bucks have harems of several females. Basic biology also says that a given male could reproduce with a large number of females, while a female can only bear one set of young at a time. The solution is to open doe season just like the buck season.

I know some of you think this is barbaric. I agree it isn't the most pleasant thing and I don't hunt deer myself. However, there is nowhere to transport them: Whitetail deer are everywhere they can possibly survive already and have been for eons. Birth control and such doesn't really work because there are so many deer and it would be very expensive. Besides that, hunters in Virginia routinely donate over 1 million pounds of meat to the poor through certified agencies every year. That's a lot, but even with that, the deer population still grows every year.

[Guest guest]

Evan,

Somehow I don't think this would solve all our problems. If we started

with the human animal, we wouldn't manage to live through this

proposed risk assessment strategy.

Tom

I propose a risk assesment strategy to apply to all animals and if

they are found to be a risk then they will forfeit their right to

live. If their habits are unknown then they should also die as they

MAY constitute a hazard in the future.

Evan

[Guest guest]

The comment SHOULD have finished "from the mouths of babes". What was used was a word to inidcate someone who is not that smart. It also refers to a certain part of the female chest.Lwaxy/Arania <csparania@...> wrote:

VISIGOTH@... wrote:> In a message dated 9/29/2005 3:06:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, > no_reply writes:>> Ah, Maurice, Maurice, from the mouths of boobs >> This is an example of what is not acceptable on this site. While > probably meant in jest, it would very likely be taken as a personal > attack by the person it is addressed to. Such comments serve no useful > purpose in a discussion. Let's not have any more of this.> > Uhm.. could anyone explain this to me? I didn't get it *ultimate Aspie moment*Lwaxy-- " From childhood's hour I have not beenAs others were; I have not seenAs others saw; I could not bringMy passions from a common spring.From the same source I have not takenMy

sorrow; I could not awakenMy heart to joy at the same tone;And all I loved, I loved alone."If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com Heckofreelance proofreadernancygailus@...

for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Guest guest]

Tom,

I hate to disagree, those are the figures by state and national wildlife agencies. It is also a matter of historic record that their numbers are increasing. Counts over the last 50 years who their numbers rising and compared to older records, their numbers are very high.

This only makes sense. Corn and wheat have a much higher nutritional value than the leaves the deer would normally be eating. Better food means healthier deer, which also means more of them.

Other evidence also supports their greater numbers. Biodiversity is decreasing in the forest understory. This is largely due to the huge numbers of deer that are browsing there. Even 20 years ago this wasn't a concern, but now it is.

Another point is the number of deer killed by the hurricanes. After Hurricane Ivan, people found large numbers of dead deer while they were cleaning up. One parcel on my land was hard hit by the storm. The men clearing up an area of about 20 acres found 80 dead deer there. It was not uncommon to find simliarly high numbers in hard hit areas.

Even with losses like that, deer are still very common. Wildlife officials were planning to cut short hunting season, but their surveys showed there were still large numbers of deer out there.

It is not unusual for certain animals the thrive around humans, not counting the domesticated ones. Rats and mice would have a hard go without humans around. Moles, squirrels, song birds and other critters also do well around humans. Hawks and falcons have begun to make their homes in cities and aren't bothered by the numbers of people. Around here there are hawks and big owls, though they have all but wiped out the squirrel population, which is down from 10 regulars around my feeders to one or two really timid ones that lurk in the bushes.

Deer are no different. Humans have changed the environment in ways that are very good for them. They have more and better forage and fewer predators. Fewer predators means more fawns reach adulthood.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/30/2005 4:06:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, inglori@... writes:

Here in Sweden, us Stockholmers think reintroducing wolves and bears IN THE NORTH of Scandinavia is a great idea. That way we feel good about having them around. That is, having them around OTHER Scandinavians, not ourselves. :-)Inger

Inger,

There is a simliar fight going on in the American west. There are people that want to re-introduce wolves and other predators to some areas to "rebalance" nature. That sounds all well and good, but it hasn't really worked that way. The wolves typically begin hunting farm animals rather than deer or rabbits because they are easier to take. Hunting livestock is what got them killed off in the first place. Even though there are large fines for killing wolves and coyotes, ranchers still do it whenever one gets too close to their herd.

That might sound bad, but you have to figure this. A cow might be valued at $5,000 and sheep at several hundred at least. If you have wolves killing several of these per week, then the rancher faces a great deal of loss. The government could reimburse them, but it would be better not to put the wolves back in the first place.

Like you say, the people pushing for the wolves are people who live in the cities who think it would be cute to hear them howling at night or whatever. As you say, they are not the ones who will have to live with them or have them killing their livestock and herd dogs. Likewise, those are the same people who freak out when a coyote comes into town and kills a small dog and carries it off.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/30/2005 4:31:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, julie.stevenson16@... writes:

Also on matter of rats and possible mutations - this has possibly already happened in Leeds - although it could be urban legend. I did read in news that rats near Leeds university had mated with rats that had been experimented on (and had escaped, been let out, whatever) and now they were bigger and meaner and basically more intelligent too. Whether this true or not, makes one wonder about human intervention - and also if animal right activists released these lab rats into the wild, did they realise the possible consequences of thier actions?

That's interesting. I hadn't heard of that before but it could be possible. Then again, there was an Outer Limits program with much the same premise in the late 1980's. In this case the rats were put in a very dangerous environment and only the toughest and smartest survived. Eventually they got smart enough to attack the human scientists and escaped.

Also, there are stories of rats attacking and killing people. Now and then you will hear a story about some drunk homeless person who was passed out that gets eaten alive by rats. On other occasions, people have woken up with rats having a nibble on them. Others, again probably drunks, wake up to find they have been badly mauled by a swarm of rats.

There are lots of stories about this happening in WW1. The rats would grow to legendary sizes from feeding on the corpses in no man's land between the trenches. They were so big and so many, that if you were sleeping by yourself in the trench or on watch that they would attack and sometimes kill the person.

As for the squirrels, no telling what made them attack. Perhaps they were protecting their young or it was mating season and the squirrel thought the people were competition, or just didn't want them around. I've only had a squirrel run at me once. I just stomped a foot down and yelled a feral yell at it and it ran off. I saw that same squirrel after that but it never came close to me again.

Most of them were normal and a few rather tame. I had some problems with one of them though. It got used to me feeding them and seeing me come and go through the front door. This critter decided that it was to come looking for me and climbed up the doorframe and was looking in the windowed transom over the door. It took me about a week of chasing to get it to stop doing that. I'm just glad we have a storm door or it might well have crawled in through the mail slot on the main door.

[Guest guest]

Try to imagine what the deer population was like when man was not

present in such great numbers. What we have now is still a fraction of

what we once had.

A solution to the problem of too many deer is to reintroduce coyotes

in regions where coyotes were once native. Wolves in their native

areas also. As dangerous as this sounds, we have coyotes near where I

live (suburban Chicago) and there have been no reports of coyotes

attacking anyone.

There is no hunting allowed around here, and you hardly ever hear of

deer getting hit by cars, yet the deer population remains stable.

When I drove around Lake Michigan, I stopped by Pictured Rocks

National Lakeshore. At night while I was standing outside the hotel

smoking a cigarette, I heard wolves howling. The next day I asked a

park ranger about the wolves and he said there were many packs of them

that had been reintroduced to the area over a period of years. They

keep to the wooods, are mostly harmless, and can be beaten off with a

stick if they attempt to attack you.

Tom

I think the problem is that the hunting rules were skewed. Hunting is

used to control the population, but most of the hunting is of bucks

(males). Deer aren't monogamous, but instead the bucks have harems of

several females. Basic biology also says that a given male could

reproduce with a large number of females, while a female can only bear

one set of young at a time. The solution is to open doe season just

like the buck season.

[Guest guest]

>

> I can see how an Aspie could have trouble with this kind of thing.

> That was why the admonission and not anything harsher.

>

> Hope this helps,

>

>

>

>

>

Thanks, that explains it perfectly.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

After thinking about this subject some more, I have some additional

comments.

Even though I too think that biodiversity is necessary and that we don't

really have a right to totally extinguish any species just because we find

it annoying, I see one point in Maurice's view and that is that those who

are most for conservation and reintroduction of predators rarely live close

enough to them to be affected by anything they do.

We love to know that wild game still exists in Africa so that we can go on

safaris, film them and watch them on TV. I'm sure that the local Africans

are a lot less than thrilled by their existence.

Here in Sweden, us Stockholmers think reintroducing wolves and bears IN THE

NORTH of Scandinavia is a great idea. That way we feel good about having

them around. That is, having them around OTHER Scandinavians, not ourselves.

:-)

Inger

[Guest guest]

" It is not unusual for certain animals the thrive around humans, not

counting the domesticated ones. Rats and mice would have a hard go

without humans around. Moles, squirrels, song birds and other

critters also do well around humans. "

Yep, certainly thriving around here despite it being a fairly built

up area. In certains areas squirels have been known to attack humans -

not sure of their reasons - must have felt threatened for some

reason maybe - I've never personally been attacked - and hope not to

be :-)

Also on matter of rats and possible mutations - this has possibly

already happened in Leeds - although it could be urban legend. I did

read in news that rats near Leeds university had mated with rats that

had been experimented on (and had escaped, been let out, whatever)

and now they were bigger and meaner and basically more intelligent

too. Whether this true or not, makes one wonder about human

intervention - and also if animal right activists released these lab

rats into the wild, did they realise the possible consequences of

thier actions?

> Tom,

>

> I hate to disagree, those are the figures by state and national

wildlife

> agencies. It is also a matter of historic record that their numbers

are

> increasing. Counts over the last 50 years who their numbers rising

and compared to

> older records, their numbers are very high.

>

> This only makes sense. Corn and wheat have a much higher

nutritional value

> than the leaves the deer would normally be eating. Better food

means healthier

> deer, which also means more of them.

>

> Other evidence also supports their greater numbers. Biodiversity

is

> decreasing in the forest understory. This is largely due to the

huge numbers of deer

> that are browsing there. Even 20 years ago this wasn't a concern,

but now it

> is.

>

> Another point is the number of deer killed by the hurricanes.

After

> Hurricane Ivan, people found large numbers of dead deer while they

were cleaning up.

> One parcel on my land was hard hit by the storm. The men clearing

up an area

> of about 20 acres found 80 dead deer there. It was not uncommon to

find

> simliarly high numbers in hard hit areas.

>

> Even with losses like that, deer are still very common. Wildlife

officials

> were planning to cut short hunting season, but their surveys showed

there were

> still large numbers of deer out there.

>

> It is not unusual for certain animals the thrive around humans,

not counting

> the domesticated ones. Rats and mice would have a hard go without

humans

> around. Moles, squirrels, song birds and other critters also do

well around

> humans. Hawks and falcons have begun to make their homes in cities

and aren't

> bothered by the numbers of people. Around here there are hawks and

big owls,

> though they have all but wiped out the squirrel population, which

is down from

> 10 regulars around my feeders to one or two really timid ones that

lurk in the

> bushes.

>

> Deer are no different. Humans have changed the environment in ways

that are

> very good for them. They have more and better forage and fewer

predators.

> Fewer predators means more fawns reach adulthood.

>

>

[Guest guest]

,

Another alternative is to drive people out of the area and let the

wolves roam free. Most of the land out west that is generally good for

wolves is also generally poor for cattle grazing. The government ought

to boot them out and put wolves in there.

As for the deer, I really don't think you have any sort of idea who

populous the land and sky was with game before people populated it in

such great numbers.

Example:

http://64.233.167.104/search?

q=cache:Az7VXILA9bAJ:www.nytimes.com/books/first/p/price-flight.html+%

22north+america%22+%22carrier+pigeons%22+flocks & hl=en

" I was suddenly struck with astonishment at a loud rushing roar,

succeeded by instant darkness, " the ornithologist

wrote after he encountered a pigeon flock along the Ohio River in the

early 1800s: " I took [it] for a tornado, about to overwhelm the house

and everything around in destruction. " sat down to watch the

flock pass over, and after five hours, he estimated that it had been

240 miles long and numbered over two billion birds.

Such reports of flocks of birds were not uncommon and this one is not

an exaggeration according to people at the Field Museum in Chicago.

The deer were much more plentiful then we have today. Corn and other

grains are not their native food. Grass, scrub brush, and berries are.

Tom

That might sound bad, but you have to figure this. A cow might be

valued at $5,000 and sheep at several hundred at least. If you have

wolves killing several of these per week, then the rancher faces a

great deal of loss. The government could reimburse them, but it would

be better not to put the wolves back in the first place.

[Guest guest]

Sorry Tom,

I wasn't being serious, I was being sarcastic in response to the "zero risk to humans" bizzo.

personally I couoldnt give a toss if a shipload of humans got eaten by a shark or whatever. "Wrong time and wrong place" is the reality and were not going to live forever anyway. The biggest risk to humans is actually people. Thats right, our own species who have beheaded, shot gassed, speared, hung, electrocuted etc etc of 70,000,000 in the last century alone. pretty dangerouos species eh! Who gives a bucket of cow crap if a few odd humans become dinner for some beastie. At least they have been put to better use than being cremated or buried and have gone into our rightful place in the food chain.

Evanenvironmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote:

Evan,Somehow I don't think this would solve all our problems. If we started with the human animal, we wouldn't manage to live through this proposed risk assessment strategy.TomI propose a risk assesment strategy to apply to all animals and if they are found to be a risk then they will forfeit their right to live. If their habits are unknown then they should also die as they MAY constitute a hazard in the future.Evan

for Good Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/30/2005 8:57:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, csparania@... writes:

And what would've been so bad about that? ) I used to have 2 squirrels come visit me when I was a kid, they never destroyed anything. Neither did the crow that used to come through my window.Lwaxy

The problem is that it would have a hard time getting back out. The interior flap on the mailslot is harder to open from the inside than the outside. But really the biggest problem would be that my mother would absolutely freak out. I don't have a dog anymore, so that would be good for the squirrel.

[Guest guest]

>

> Most of them were normal and a few rather tame. I had some problems

> with one of them though. It got used to me feeding them and seeing me

> come and go through the front door. This critter decided that it was

> to come looking for me and climbed up the doorframe and was looking in

> the windowed transom over the door. It took me about a week of chasing

> to get it to stop doing that. I'm just glad we have a storm door or it

> might well have crawled in through the mail slot on the main door.

And what would've been so bad about that? ) I used to have 2 squirrels

come visit me when I was a kid, they never destroyed anything. Neither

did the crow that used to come through my window.

Lwaxy

--

" From childhood's hour I have not been

As others were; I have not seen

As others saw; I could not bring

My passions from a common spring.

From the same source I have not taken

My sorrow; I could not awaken

My heart to joy at the same tone;

And all I loved, I loved alone. "

[Guest guest]

LOL, wish I could have seen your mother's face! And your dog's! :-D

I love snakes. We hardly have any here in Sweden, except adders and a similar non-venomous type (don't know the name in English).

Inger

Re: Re: Giant Squid caught on film

Inger,

I do have a dog door on the back door, but the squirrels never tried it, probably becaue they would see the dogs come out of it. Also, the outside flap if probably too heavy for them to move.

The only thing that has come through there was about a 3 foot long black snake. It had actually come up the back steps and pushed through the flap, which is in the storm door, and was sitting between the storm door and the house door, which only has a hole cut in the frame. Why it didn't continue into the house I don't know. I just threw a towel on its head, picked it up and tossed it over the fence.

The real fun though was the 5+ foot one that got in the basement. I had stepped out the back door and looked down at the basement door just in time to see the tail end of the snake go sliding under the door. So I go down there looking for the thing and find it behind the washer and dryer. I did like I did with the little snake. I put a towel over its head so it couldn't see me and grabbed it right behind the head to control it. That was just the start of the fun though. The devil got hold of the pipes with it back half and we had a nice tug of war: it hanging on and me trying to pull it out from behind the machines. It was a strong bugger too.

Finally it decided to let go of the pipes and try to get hold of me. We tangled for a moment or two until I had the snake under control with my left hand while I was hanging on to its head with the right. The basement door was locked and I had my hands full, so I went back upstairs to go out the front door (because it was easy to open with one hand). I stopped by the den to show the snake to my mother, who promptly had a fit. My dog came over to see what I had, but as soon as her cold nose touched the snake, it starting writhing again. That was it for my dog and she ran over and jumped up by my mother who was hollering at me to get rid of the snake.

So, I went for the door, faking like the snake was dropping which had my mother trying to climb from the sofa onto the table. That nearly made me laugh hard enough to actually drop the snake. Anyway, I took it outside via the front door, headed around back and let it go.

It turns out the snake wasn't just sight-seeing. The snake had followed the sent trail of some rats that had moved into the house when some contractors had left the door open for a few days. That's a story in itself though.

These snakes got off easy because they aren't the poisonous kind. These were black or rat snakes. They eat mice, rats and things like that. Its the copperheads and watermoccasins that are poisonous. If I catch them up around the house I'll usually kill them. However, I haven't seen either of that kind anywhere in the yard for probably 10 years. They seem to like it downstream around the lake. When I used to hike back there there were lots of them. Still, they were easy to avoid if you stayed on the higher ground and watched the trees. Copperheads have a nasty habit of climbing up trees to just about head height. One time I was so busy walking around the snake on the ground that I didn't see the one in the tree until I was within arm's length of it. Fortunately it didn't seem to think I was a threat and didn't strike, which most likely would have hit me in the face or neck because we looked each other level in the eye.

[Guest guest]

Ofcourse I disagree with genocide on animals, for many more than one

reason, but I won't discuss the dry matter on animal sentiency and

the position of animals on this planet, the environmental aspects and

effects on the eco system of genocide and the already not so smart

results from many previous actions of the intelligent(?) homo

sapiens....

as for 'dangerous animals'... more human beings are killed by human

beings (and their constructs and inventions) than by any other animal

species in this world.

sorry if this has already been stated before =)

Ah, the price of

> civilization, isn't it great? Bambi-Burgers have blood equity!

But

> hey, we're very civilized, isn't it great?????

>

> --- In , " maurice " <megaknee@b...>

> > Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress

for

> > civilisation.

[Guest guest]

Feel free to discuss anything you wish MaYa. I have tried and will

continue to try to make this place a safe one for posting.

I am an animal rights activist but refrained from arguing because I

was otherwise occupied.

If you take a single animal and get to know it, you will soon

understand that no matter how ugly or dangerous it is, it has a

personality, and intellect, and a soul.

I believe humans don't look too closely at animals in this way

because they could not live with themselves afterwards. Once you've

hurt an animal and realize in retrospect that they were a living

thinking being, it can be too much to handle for most people.

Tom

Ah, the price of civilization, isn't it great? Bambi-Burgers have

blood equity!

But hey, we're very civilized, isn't it great?????

--- In , " maurice " <megaknee@b...>

Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress

for civilisation.

[Guest guest]

Feel free to discuss anything you wish MaYa. I have tried and will

continue to try to make this place a safe one for posting.

I am an animal rights activist but refrained from arguing because I

was otherwise occupied.

If you take a single animal and get to know it, you will soon

understand that no matter how ugly or dangerous it is, it has a

personality, and intellect, and a soul.

I believe humans don't look too closely at animals in this way

because they could not live with themselves afterwards. Once you've

hurt an animal and realize in retrospect that they were a living

thinking being, it can be too much to handle for most people.

Tom

Ah, the price of civilization, isn't it great? Bambi-Burgers have

blood equity!

But hey, we're very civilized, isn't it great?????

--- In , " maurice " <megaknee@b...>

Hunting any dangerous animal to extinction can only be progress

for civilisation.