BoatBanter.com - Piscatorial genocide...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
"Reginald P. Smithers III" wrote in
message ...
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 07:15:01 -0400, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

But like Captain Ahab or perhaps Wile E. Coyote, the state has
not let
a little adversity stop it.
This is the best line in the article.

And here's the real reason for the poisoning.

"After the poisoning is complete - and all the dead fish are
scooped
out of the water - the lake will be tested for toxicity, and
will
remain closed for two months, Mr. Martarano said. After that,
restocking will begin, with a goal of one million trout in Lake
Davis
by 2010."

I've fired off a letter to Trout Unlimited to see if they are
involved
with this in any way. I give them a fair amount of money every
year
and this better not have been on the national agenda.

I can understand their concern about an invasive fish,
upsetting the ecosystem, but they really do seem like Wile
E.Coyote.

I did check up on Rotenone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotenone.
I don't believe I would get back in the lake for a LONG time.

Yeah, but so many morons have been hypnotized (or bribed) by the
chemical industry. I'm sure the state will be lying to people
about the safety of rotenone as soon as the lake is opened.

Is a short lived poison only toxic to gilled animals. Plus they
Rotenoned the lake a couple of years ago. Seems as if we did not
create any Blobs.

Yet.

Since chemicals like that have not and cannot be PROPERLY tested on
humans, we will NEVER know if they are safe. According to the
chemical industry, animal tests are not a valid method for
predicting the effects on humans, so that argument is no longer
permissible.

Sure it is. You may not like it. But is a permissible argument.
And since it has been used lots of places without any noticable
impact on humans since, we can assume it is not that affecting to
humans. We live with a lot more chemicals that are a lot worse for
us and we are required to use them. Where are your arguments against
their use?

In a laboratory, a scientist can exercise quite a bit of control to be
sure a rat is not being exposed to dioxin, so when they are testing
the toxicity of some other thing, they know it wasn't dioxin that
caused a problem. It's practically impossible to set up the same
situation for human testing, which is why any scientist worth his salt
will tell you it's futile.

As far as animal tests, the antics surrounding their validity have
been going on since the late 1960s. Environmental groups would point
to tests which indicated a certain chemical caused cancer in rats, and
companies like Dow would respons by saying animals react differently
than humans, so it's risky to extrapolate from those results. But,
when convenient, they would point to animal tests which did NOT result
in illness, and say those WERE valid results.

Then, there's the issue of children's exposure. You know why that's a
whole different thing, right?

For one example is the fire protectants that all childrens pajamas
and bedding are required to use. Blood analysis of children show up
frightening amounts of these chemicals, but no rotenone.

Silly. Were the pajamas being tested for rotenone?

You are an idiot. Rant about poisoning one lake with a killer of
gilled animals, and not worry about all the chemicals your children are
exposed to daily. Sad.

Read the message again, billy bob.

You read the reply again, dip****.

Let's see....it's late Friday. Time for you to try and find your wife
again.

I know where mine is. Do you?