Like I've suggested from the very start....it seems more about 'making money' than providing a useful means to kill hogs. Hence, the strong support by only a handful of folks/agencies and the 'fast tracking' of its approval (just my opinion).
C'mon...given all the (both admitted and unadmitted) unfounded skepticism to using poisons --of
any kind-- in this thread alone, is it really that far-fetched to think there's a lack of objectivity among even
more ignorant & reactionary environmental policy officials? Ever since "Silent Spring" & the overblown DDT fiasco, it's been standard procedure to be incredibly, often unbelievably timid when it comes to application of pesticide (Round-Up being the obvious, and extremely odd exception given its ubiquity, which has much to do with how profitable its use is). As we see here, the assumption, no, the
insistence is that it could not possibly be anything but destructive to everything with no chance of the risks being worth the reward, from the very start, even in the absence of evidence, until the contrary is proven at great needless expense. As opposed to the more logical approach of demanding some evidence of reckless disregard for public health by the people decrying the proposal made after extensive testing & examination here & abroad.
Who exactly is making so much money on this gambit? That's what I'd like to know. Is it Monsanto or the other usual suspects renowned for lobbying for bad policy, or is it a random concern that patented a new use for an old pesticide? I know a lot of the groups lobbying against it are using the controversy in
their marketing materials...
https://www.change.org/p/texas-lawm...arin-to-poison-feral-hogs-and-our-environment
According to the change.org petition's spiel, it appears the Aussie's stopped using the stuff because its effects were "too inhumane." Once again, a large contingent of the opposition has no interest in actually solving the problem, and instead focuses exclusively on excuses to allow the hog proliferation to continue. So the hogs bleed internally & suffer for a solid week before dying; am I alone in saying "who cares?" This isn't about sporting practices, fair chase, or other hunting Queensberry rules; it's about removing a destructive animal from an area effectively. If the hogs weren't here in such numbers, there would be no need to deal with them by any means necessary, and stuff like warfarin/etc would not be necessary.
These same fools say that helicopter hunting is preferable, as though the tremendous expense and wildly impractical logistics of that tactic could possibly be effective for anything but fun in the vast majority of cases (hogs hang out in the underbrush, anyway), or even applicable for any but the wealthiest ranchers.
The most telling quote from that site; "this action is not approved by animal rights advocates, environmental protection advocates, or Texas hunters." Not one of these groups has any interest in reducing the hog population by a single animal. All likely prefer even higher rates of hog infestation.
Yeah, I'm about as worried about people eating
that by accident as I am people eating poorly cooked boar full of parasites (which are obviously proliferating right along with the hog populations)
Actually, that is what Sid Miller is promising with Warfarin, a "Hog Apocalypse."
Define "Hog Apocalypse." Oh, that's right, it's just a buzzword to grab some headlines by Miller. Not to mention, the Apocalypse is merely a destructive end of the world order as we know it, not the annihilation of all life (so in reality, it's just a stupid, inappropriate, and melodramatic metaphor). Pretty sure hogs don't get raptured (at least, I'd hope not)
TCB