You should find new sources of "information". Not one of those is a reputable site. In fact, they are all sites designed to convince you of falsehoods. Every one of them. Google search those sites and see what pops up.
You should find new sources of "information". Not one of those is a reputable site. In fact, they are all sites designed to convince you of falsehoods. Every one of them. Google search those sites and see what pops up.
I assume you are now going to tell me the "right wingers" at the World Health Organization pushed this through.
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2006/pr50/en/
I think Georgia should try this
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/21/hunters-fight-so-called-feral-hog-apocalypse-in-texas.html
There was an article not too long ago talking about using some sort of salt, potassium nitrite?
Its a food preservative that is deadly to pigs but not other animals. It joked that the same thing we use to make bacon taste good is what kills the pigs. This seems better than Warfarin.
I'm not an expert on this stuff but I don't think Across the Rivers post is entirely correct either?
I didn't say it was extremely toxic to humans or that it isn't an effective pesticide. You said "DDT ban was a lie". It was banned because its misuse negativey affected raptor reproduction, among other things. That is not a lie.
So for those opposed to this new product, what other aggressive measures would you favor instead:
1. Requiring a certain number of hog kills for annual deer tags
2. License funded bounties on hogs
3. For profit market trapping of hogs
Current countermeasures are ineffective, and the problem is growing throughout the south. Gotta get more aggressive somehow.
Rather than just saying "no" to one idea, what ideas would you be OK with that stand a realistic chance of significantly reducing feral hog populations?
So for those opposed to this new product, what other aggressive measures would you favor instead:
1. Requiring a certain number of hog kills for annual deer tags
2. License funded bounties on hogs
3. For profit market trapping of hogs
Current countermeasures are ineffective, and the problem is growing throughout the south. Gotta get more aggressive somehow.
Rather than just saying "no" to one idea, what ideas would you be OK with that stand a realistic chance of significantly reducing feral hog populations?
#2 They say a bounty would do no good for coyotes, if they will not implement it for one then they shouldn't be able to do it for another.
After reading a number of articles, the product is fairly promising in terms of effectiveness with minimal collateral damage.
I won't criticize TX for giving it a try, but perhaps LA and GA would be wise to see how things go in TX before expanding its use to other states.
No need to rush jumping on the bandwagon. Why not wait and see if some of the concerns that have been raised are borne out or if it is just chicken little syndrome?[/QUOTE]
X's 2
I never mentioned DDT. You ask for reference in regards to someone else posts, and I provided so for you. You called those outlets a hoax, so I provided you another one. DDT was banned because Rachel Carson wrote a book that swayed public perception at the time. The "facts" in her book were propaganda. There have been numerous studies that show that DDT did not affect eggs shells. The US fish and wildlife service did an extensive study and found that the DDT did not impact eggs. Look it up. You should also look up that the Bald Eagle Population went up (per the Audubon Society) in many areas during the peak of the DDT use. You should look that up too.
The Sodium Nitrite as stated above seems to be a good option, certainly better than Warfarin (Coumadin)