SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The USDA will stop using sodium cyanide "bombs" in Idaho (at least temporarily) following an incident that put a 14-year-old in the hospital and killed his dog:
About a month after an anti-predator device spit sodium cyanide in the face of an unsuspecting boy and killed his dog, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has announced it is ending its use of the M-44 mechanisms in Idaho indefinitely.
"We take seriously the incident in Idaho," Jason Suckow, western regional director of the USDA's Wildlife Services agency, told conservation groups in a letter Monday. "We immediately responded by removing all M-44s from the area, initiating an inquiry into the incident, and launching a review of current [Wildlife Services] operating procedures."
Suckow noted the agency has "removed all M-44s currently deployed on all land ownerships in Idaho" and has refrained from planting new ones.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:55PM (7 children)
I thought there were laws against the use of booby traps.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Scrutinizer on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:25PM (4 children)
Silly Runaway - laws are for you, not for your betters!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:51PM (3 children)
These are traps targeted at coyotes, not boobies, so perfectly legit. And needed! Have you ever seen how a coyote can bring down a full-grown Hereford cow? They start by nipping at the heels and nose, but then rip the whole cow open from throat to anus, and turn the animal inside-out and start feeding on the offal while the cow is still alive! Cyanide gun traps are too good for them!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:59PM
Point taken. Let's kill nature!
(Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 17 2017, @04:30AM
Coyotes are horrible. But - have you ever seen a slaughterhouse? Wait - you thought humans were somehow superior to coyotes? That cow was destined for the belly of one predatory animal or another, no matter what. You're just upset that the coyote got to that hamburger before you did!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @06:51PM
bullshit, you jackass. i think i might to hunt coyote hunters when i get my next long range gun built. you dumb fucks are just making the "problem" worse. don't you know that when you put them under pressure they react by seeking out new territory and having more pups? this is why i don't fund the federal government. spraying coyotes, dogs and kids in the face with poison? fuck you, you dumb fucks.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:47PM
Silly bunny. Those laws are only for in-duh-viduals.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Monday April 17 2017, @09:48AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Sunday April 16 2017, @05:55PM (12 children)
thought it was a good idea to plant mines in the forest? These things are indiscriminate killers, human and animal alike. Somebody needs some jail time for this stupendously stupid decision.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:33PM (4 children)
Sadly, they have yet to understand that their actions were criminally negligent. They didn't remove the devices in any other state and they haven't promised not to use them again. Had anyone but the U.S. government placed the mine, that person would be awaiting trial right now. I have yet to hear of anyone with the agency offering to cover any medical bills, much less offering reasonable compensation (to the extent that you can compensate a 14 year old boy for watching his family pet die in terror).
Short of somebody being put in the back of a police car, I'm not sure what will give them the needed message.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:03PM
Apparently in the past they have just denied setting the mines if someone complains:
http://www.predatordefense.org/docs/m44_press_EPA_investigation_1-17-08.pdf [predatordefense.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:13PM (2 children)
Wow in this one the investigation apparently intimidated the family. Also there was no livestock in the area to be protected anyway:
http://www.predatordefense.org/docs/m44_article_Buddy_Tippetts.pdf [predatordefense.org]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 17 2017, @04:38AM (1 child)
Well, you're mistaken on a technicality. The dog is "livestock". So, they were "protecting" the dog.
Let me add that coyotes love killing dogs. I've not seen it myself, but I'm told that a pack of coyotes will take a position at the reverse military crest of a hill, then one member will run over the hill to taunt a lone dog. The dog comes out to chase the lone coyote, which then runs back over the hill. One-on-one, a typical German Shepard will tear a coyote apart. With six to one (or more) odds in their favor, the coyotes always win.
Which goes to show that coyotes are pretty damned smart. The booby traps won't remain effective against them for long - if they are effective now.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @06:54PM
killing coyotes at all is ineffective. they take role at night and the alpha females have more pups if you killed one/some.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:00PM
They've been in use since 1967.
The previous generation had a .38 special cartridge to eject the capsule with more force, but that was replaced with a spring after too many people were injured or killed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M44_(cyanide_device) [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:58PM (4 children)
Not really 'indiscriminate killers' with respect to animals; they're anchored in the ground and triggered by pulling, so most animals won't set them off (only those that habitually gnaw bones). And they're supposed to have warning signs posted so people don't go "Huh, what's this sticking out of the ground?" and pull on them -- it appears those signs weren't present in this case.
With appropriate precautions, I don't see these as being that dangerous; it looks like USDA was being sloppy with them, really. And this sort of thing -- mines, spring-guns, booby traps, etc. -- just aren't something you can afford to get sloppy with. So I agree someone probably deserves jail, but for the criminal negligence of either not posting warnings, or not checking frequently to be sure the warnings were still present and still legible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:27PM (2 children)
In this video a guy claims the bombs are killing cows, just from licking them. Further, he says that they report the cows as killed by coyotes rather than the cyanide, which leads to further perceived need for the bombs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSV8pRLkdKI&feature=youtu.be [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:52PM (1 child)
So let me get this straight, people NOT in their right minds are deploying these things. (Ultimate appeal to internets authority: a guy in a video on youtube says it, so it must be true!)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:04PM
Well, the "guy in a video on youtube" was presented as a former employee that got fired because he wouldn't take part in such practices. It seemed legit to me, but I guess I don't know for sure. There is another story in the video about Wildlife Services capturing domestic dogs and feeding them these bombs on purpose.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:03PM
In this case, even more negligent than that for placing them near homes with children and pets and no livestock. They're damned lucky it was a 14 year old who thought to clean the stuff off with snow rather than a small child who couldn't have read the warnings even if there were any.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 18 2017, @05:55PM
I didn't even know these things existed in the public lands.
And why don't they "AT LEAST" put a sign nearby, I mean jeesh?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Scrutinizer on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:23PM
Taking that statement at full face value still leaves unresolved the matter of federal government agents placing deadly booby-traps in all States other than Idaho. For example, it is claimed that the exact same M-44 "bombs" are, and will continue to be, used in Wyoming. [hcn.org]
As for the M-44's use in general, I can see how such devices can be quite useful for keeping varmint predator populations suppressed. The particular manner in which they were used in this case, though, was criminally negligent. Local law enforcement in Idaho was reportedly unaware of the devices, according to early news reports [ktla.com], and the booby-trap was not marked in any way. Hidden "bombs" scattered around the US countryside harkens back to the Japanese balloon bombs of World War 2 [npr.org], something I was cautioned repeatedly about as a kid more than a generation after the war ended. Yet here we have the same "war crimes" committed by US government agents, paid for with tax dollars. Just another part of the "admission fee" for civilization, I guess?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Sunday April 16 2017, @06:35PM (11 children)
Joe Rogan recently had a guest, Dan Flores, on his podcast who studies coyotes in the US. It was very interesting. Apparently, many methods that ranchers and the government use to reduce the coyote population actually have the opposite effect. Putting pressure on the population actually increases their fecundity. The episode is ~2.5 hours long, but worth it. [youtube.com]
This particular method of population control seems almost comically evil. I'm surprised these sorts of accidents don't happen more often.
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:46PM (5 children)
That stuff is purposely misleading nonsense from people who think these deadly beasts are cute little doggies.
Fecundity goes to zero, period. Dead animals don't breed.
As in war, we get a lot more pain and suffering if we drag things out forever. If there are a million to kill, you can kill a million now or you can kill a half million of every generation until the end of time. There is no limit to the killing if you drag it out, failing to apply the overwhelming force required to wipe out the enemy.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:54PM (2 children)
That stuff is purposely misleading nonsense from people who think these deadly beasts are cute little doggies.
They are and have been part of nature for hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. The war on coyotes is just part of the war on predators, and any other animal which might cut into rancher profits, that are a disgusting holdover from the 1800's.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
As soon as a kid is smart enough to stay out of the street, it should be safe to leave them outside. Kids should be able to play.
Any creature that would interfere needs to be eliminated. That includes animals, criminals, and toxic plants.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday April 20 2017, @08:56PM
Just move to Disneyland already.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:45PM
I have no interest in debating the obvious problems with fucking cyanide sentries. But for what it's worth Joe Rogan isn't stupid. He's lived in the Colorado mountains and is very well versed in natural history. I don't even like the podcast that much anymore and I disagree heavily with a lot of what he says. But it's dumb to imply he doesn't know what he's saying.
Also I'm not sure where that left field war rant came from but how 'boutchu and the rest of the cunts go back to twitter. The liberals turn you on so much because they're a lot like you and you're a lot like them. You deserve each other - and you know it.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 17 2017, @04:48AM
Of course, there won't be any unforeseen consequences of wiping out an animal species. It can't happen, because mankind is so smart, he can't be surprised by anything nature might do. The rabbits, rats, squirrels, and other rodents in the country certainly won't overpopulate when the last coyote is gone, will they? And, rabies won't run rampant as a consequence, right?
Life must be to good. Far to many people have forgotten what they are, and where they come from. As much as we have fucked with nature, nature still reigns supreme on this planet. Don't forget that, you simple animal.
(Score: 2) by rts008 on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:56PM (1 child)
Comically evil, you say?
You are comically correct, julian.
You do realize that these were designed against Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, don'tcha?
How could they be anything less than comically evil? ;-)
But all jokes aside, these seem like chemical weapon land mines, and that is evil...just ask that hospitalized 14 year old boy that lost his dog to one of them.
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Monday April 17 2017, @01:54AM
Coyote killing bombs would have been set BY Wile E, in an attempt to get the Road Runner.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Monday April 17 2017, @02:07AM (2 children)
I'm not that surprised - coyotes adjust their litter size based on stress and available resources, from only one or two to a dozen or so. Assuming the culling techniques are not especially stressful for coyotes not culled, having fewer coyotes around means more available food per coyote, and much larger litter sizes. And if culling eliminates a large portion of the population every generation, then it's going to represent a huge evolutionary pressure in favor of whatever physical and behavioral traits make the survivors more resistant to culling.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @07:51PM (1 child)
This does not mean much larger liter sizes. The liter size is undefined, and the food per coyote is infinite, because there are zero coyotes after a successful culling. The theory that some animals just pop into existence hasn't been taken seriously for well over a century. Dead animals don't breed.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Monday April 17 2017, @09:00PM
Culling does not mean total extermination - it means killing the "undesirable"/ less fit members of a population. Such as those easily trapped or poisoned.
Besides which, if you've worked out a method to kill 100% of any animal population, Australia would love to talk to you about their rabbit problem, and there's a long line of others behind them.
And with litter sizes over ten in good times, coyotes can potentially recover from an 80% successful extermination in a single season (well, plus maturation delays)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:10PM
I don't think the US government should be setting lethal mines throughout its territories. Ignoring that a quick search shows the coyote population seems to be growing[1] despite these efforts, do these coyotes really need to be killed?
Also, this is really the first I'm hearing of these mines. It seems like they should teach you about them in school and I now wonder how much danger I've been in. Is there a map of the mines somewhere? How many are there?
[1] https://www.nrafamily.org/articles/2016/4/5/the-eastern-spread-of-coyotes-in-the-us/ [nrafamily.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:16PM (39 children)
Killed his dog? US government just made another enemy for life.
At the rate the US abuses people, it's a wonder there isn't a full scale rebellion by now.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:19PM (38 children)
Down with USDA! Bring back unregulated tainted meats!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:22PM (4 children)
This looks like extreme mission creep on the USDA's part. Like if the department of education started building armories or something.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:30PM (1 child)
So true, domestic landmines should be laid by Homeland Security, to kill terrorist wildlife.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:59PM
Not all Coyotes are Muslim extremists.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:30PM
No their task is to provide canon fodder to the slaughter or slavery. Depending on market.
(Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Monday April 17 2017, @06:08PM
Just in case this ridiculous statement is taken for a joke:
Education Department Buying 12-Gauge Shotguns [wnd.com]
I don't know much about the trustworthiness of wnd.com, but similar stories can be found elsewhere on the web. This is simply the first one I encountered that mentioned Education in the headline, rather than just included in the text among several other Federal agencies.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:35PM (32 children)
Unregulated isn't a problem. If I want to buy tainted meat, or any other product that's harmful to me, who are you (or anyone else) to stop me?
Fraud, though, is a huge problem. We already have laws against fraud, so we don't need moar regulation, just enforcement of existing anti-fraud laws. Too bad law enforcement is more concerned with giving you a speeding ticket than investigating and prosecuting actual harm-doing criminals...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @07:41PM (28 children)
If there's no regulation to require tainted meat be labelled as tainted, where's the fraud? Fraud by omission because you bought meat but the seller neglected to tell you the meat was tainted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:28PM (27 children)
That mindset is what popularized the phrase "kill all the lawyers!" Rather than trying to decry the every possible loophole as a requirement for moar regulation, a glance at the circumstances is enough. If there is a market for whatever void was filled by regulation, it will be filled in the absence of regulation by private outfits such as the Underwriters Laboratories.
(Score: 2) by KilroySmith on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:10PM (26 children)
>>>If there is a market for whatever void was filled by regulation, it will be filled
So why wasn't it? Why was the sale of tainted meat widespread enough for Upton Sinclair to make a mint off "The Jungle"? Why wasn't that void filled?
When you can answer that question, feel free to get back to me...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @09:31PM (25 children)
It was, as per my example. For your example, well, "government hates competition", and governments typically use armed men with guns to shut down anything it hates.
What, you thought US government didn't exist in 1906? Who do you think was keeping corporations from being sued into oblivion with their wanton trespass of air and water pollution?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:18PM (24 children)
It was, as per my example.
[citation needed]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:22PM (23 children)
Underwriters Laboratories, a privately-owned safety standards company, working since 1894. [ul.com]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 16 2017, @10:49PM (22 children)
I've never seen a food item stamped with the UL logo.
The question put to you was why did no private group step forward to deal with tainted MEAT.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @11:05PM (21 children)
Nice goalpost moving. Too bad you got caught.
This thread started with my blanket slamming of government regulations which displace private (and thereby accountable) companies providing the same types of services. One example of such a private standards company which has survived government extermination is UL, as previously mentioned, and is so overwhelmingly popular even as an optional expense, that the vast majority of manufacturers that sell products on store shelves (thus subject to customer pre-sale inspection) choose to pay UL to test and label their products.
Unlike the UL, if the FDA were to, say, approve drugs which do more harm [wikipedia.org] than good [fdareview.org], you can't "fire" the FDA and use a more trustworthy safety-testing organization as armed government thugs would hunt you down, kill you, and sell your stuff for their profit.
No reports yet of UL murdering their customers.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday April 16 2017, @11:41PM (20 children)
Talking in the mirror? The question was:
So why wasn't it? Why was the sale of tainted meat widespread enough for Upton Sinclair to make a mint off "The Jungle"? Why wasn't that void filled?
And your answer was Underwriter's Laboratory.
BZZZZT!!!
So kindly put the goalpost back where you found it and answer the question.
I have no love for the FDA. It needs to be chopped up for firewood and replaced. But something needs to be there and no private organization was stepping up to the plate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @12:04AM (19 children)
BZZZT, yourself:
You appear to be literate, and so I'll thank you to kindly follow the thread as a literate: a troll mocked USDA critics by calling for the sale of unregulated tainted meat, and I answered the troll's praise of government regulation by using a surviving example of a private standards body.
You appear to want to claim victory for government regulators by using a field carved out with deadly force, as evidenced by the likely result of anyone ignoring the FDA/USDA and going straight to the customers with a product the FDA/USDA considers within its turf. Witness the oppressed sellers of raw milk.
The fact that the UL has both survived and thrived, and entered into just about every market space except automobiles, foods, and drugs, should be telling.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @12:36AM (18 children)
No. you were asked SPECIFICALLY who stepped up to protect consumers from tainted meat such that the USDA would represent a government excess squashing the private sector. You have no good answer and you know it. All thumping your chest will do is get cheeto stains on your teeshirt.
We HAD to have the USDA exactly because the industry showed no interest in self regulation and nobody else had any leverage to do it.
We might possibly have been better off if the industry had had enough foresight to self-regulate before regulation was imposed, but it didn't and your fond wishes won't change that.
Likewise if dumbass hadn't sold a bunch of lethal elixir sulfanilamide for children, we wouldn't have needed an FDA, but he did and the FDA was born. Personally I believe it's past time to tear the FDA down and replace it, but I still don't see any evidence the industry is ready to step up and make a government regulator unnecessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @12:51AM (17 children)
Aaaand now you're back to shuffling goalposts around. Pointing guns at people is no way to conduct business (so long as the specific people being threatened have not threatened or defrauded others first), regardless of the "morality" of the end result.
Collective punishment is bad, mmkay?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @01:08AM (16 children)
Since you have yet to answer the actual question asked, I'll presume you personally enjoy eating meat that someone with TB spat upon.
Few would make that choice willingly.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @01:28AM (14 children)
Alright, I'll have at your question: "1. Why was the sale of tainted meat widespread enough for Upton Sinclair to make a mint off "The Jungle"? 2. Why wasn't that [presumed] void filled?"
1. Fear sells. See "terrorism" today as it applies to the American everyman.
2. For one possibility, there was actually no market for additional services for the detection of tainted meat, in that meat customers were by and large happy with the state of meat commerce due to their continued purchases of meat and apparent unwillingness to pay for additional detection services, and/or were relying upon laws against fraud to deter the knowing sale of tainted meat presented as edible meat. (If such anti-fraud laws went unenforced, that is an indictment against government's ability to defend the private person, not an argument in favor of imposing yet another government-run agency.)
Another likelihood is that the forcible imposition of government agencies into the field subsequently destroyed said market because private-market competition was unable to overcome the lethal force government threatens potential competitors with.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @02:02AM (13 children)
Or they simply never imagined people producing and selling meat would be so filthy. In fact there was a great clamor for some sort of regulation after the exposé and nobody but the federal government stood up to answer demands for regulation. If you're going to comment on historical events, you really should actually learn something about history.
You didn't actually answer the question BTW, you just said in essence "aww, nobody gave a crap about that anyway" in direct contradiction to established history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @02:19AM (11 children)
Yeah, be careful with your opinions on history. If you care to scrutinize them beyond the books listed in your syllabus, you will often find it's different from the official version. "Clamor for regulation", even if historically accurate, still indicates that there was likely no market for it (due to hysteria blown out of proportion to the actual opinions of the average meat-buyer, overall satisfaction with the existing quality of meat market, and/or an unwillingness to directly pay the additional costs for additional meat inspection services), or merely because those demanding government intervention thought they could get something for free by supporting a new government agency - which of course is anything but free.
Your dislike of my answer doesn't negate the fact that an answer was nonetheless provided.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @02:39AM (10 children)
I'll have to read between the lines and presume your answer is nobody since you haven't named anyone.
I get that you can't understand how your simplistic understanding of the market failed to match reality and that you're now inventing a new history to try to make it fit. You'll finde the opposite approach will give you a better understanding and perhaps change your understanding such that it will match reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @02:55AM (9 children)
Are you being intentionally dishonest [soylentnews.org]? If not, how do you justify calling said linked post "no answer"?
I'll take my "simplistic market understanding" against your "support of the use of deadly force against innocents, willfully ignorant or not" any day. The reality that deadly force was used to impose a monopoly within a market by no means justifies the monopoly's existence nor proves that there was a market void to be filled.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @02:57AM (8 children)
The question was WHO. Where is there a who in all of that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:05AM (7 children)
It was, was it [soylentnews.org]?
Perhaps my assessment of your literacy was inaccurate...?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @03:10AM (6 children)
My mistake, perhaps because I am becoming bored of this. Why do you suppose the exposé raised such furor if there was no interest in regulating the filth? How do you reconcile that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:30AM (5 children)
I did proffer likely reasons to reconcile the situation [soylentnews.org], even beyond my core point and principle that the underlying problem with tainted meat wasn't with a lack of meat regulation as much as it was about the fraud committed by merchants offering inedible meat as edible.
In summation of my previous post linked above, asking "why did the USDA need creating to fill a market void in meat regulation" begs the question that there was a void to be filled in the first place. I highlighted this by drawing a parallel to today's overblown hysteria regarding terrorism and its effect on the average American, along with the apparent unwillingness for the bulk of meat customers to directly pay a premium for meat inspection services. The latter was attributed to a lack of an actual problem with tainted meat in terms of risk-vs-cost, and/or the desire of the voting public to "get something for free" using government guns, which of course is a core violation of free-market principles.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @03:36AM (4 children)
In other words, you are re-writing history by claiming nobody really cared all that much. Not even enough for a little food safety theater.
That really doesn't jibe with the known history. That's the part where I suggested you might have better luck changing your model rather than trying to re-write history.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @03:46AM (3 children)
So you choose to disengage by completely dismissing the answer I provided.
Continue to assume that historical fact is truth verbatim out of your government-supported educational material, and continue to insist that government manages the affairs of people better than the people themselves do when force and fraud are not tolerated.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @04:00AM (2 children)
I choose to believe the many historical sources that jibe well with human nature rather than accept your alternate history which you offer with no citations whatsoever, yes.
This is very much consistent with my reaction to flat earthers and fake moon landing nuts.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @04:57AM (1 child)
By dismissing the idea that the individual himself is the proper person to decide the management of his own affairs [soylentnews.org], including those of voluntary commerce, you are left supporting the only alternative of de facto slavery. Congratulations on being with the majority of human history on this one.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday April 17 2017, @02:48PM
Actually, what I reject is the idea that I should take an ACs word for an alternate history supported by nothing. I rtefuse to hand my agency over to a kook and you take offense.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 17 2017, @06:14AM
Let me interject here, from memory alone, first:
Around the time of the Civil War, food in general, and meat in particular, was sold to the military that was shamefully criminal. The troops were given slop that was unfit for hogs, or dogs. The state of Pennsylvania took an interest in the frauds committed against Pennsylvania troops, and set up an agency to inspect the food service facilities, and the food accepted by Pennsylvania units. Over time, that agency earned so much prestige, that food sellers who didn't even do business in Pennsylvania sought that agency's stamp of approval. There was a void for food safety standards, and the industry went to some effort to earn Pennsylvania's official stamp. I think that agency had a name something like Penn Dep't of agriculture.
Alright, memory is only so good. Let me go looking for something to back that up.
PDF with relevance - chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA235155 Wall of text warning for it though.
Another PDF with some relevance, and another WOT - https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/8965597/MooreM.pdf?sequence=1 [harvard.edu]
Remotely related - http://www.allgov.com/departments/department-of-agriculture?detailsDepartmentID=568# [allgov.com] Here you can learn the origins of the USDA in 1862, though it offers little to support my claim above.
It seems I'm just not bright enough to enter a proper search term for the data I'm looking for. :^(
Further - I just walked through my kitchen, looking at food packages with the Pa Dept of Ag markings. They aren't to be found. Apparently, the practice of getting, and advertising, the Penna Dept of Ag approval has been dropped. Maybe I need to search for historical trivia, but I'm giving up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @02:23AM
You laughably presume that government food inspection prevents contamination of food. [grist.org]
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:43PM (1 child)
People that get sick affects a lot more people than oneself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 16 2017, @08:57PM
Excellent! One more voter in support of my Prison For Pox campaign! You get sick, we throw you in the slammer, to protect everyone else from your disease-riddled carcass. I'm happy to see you see it's all for the best.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 17 2017, @07:02PM
exactly, they do nothing about fraud as they are too busy trying to outsteal the fraudsters. just a bunch of thieves.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday April 17 2017, @07:20AM
WTF #1: What is an agency of the US government doing, setting traps to protect privately owned livestock? That is the ranchers' job.
WTF #2: What idiot would set unattended traps that spray cyanide on public land? Of course some curious kid is going to poke one with a stick.
Ok, with the WTFs out of the way, let's look at the core issue: If you have livestock grazing unattended, what protective measures are appropriate? Lots of grazing in the US is on federally owned lands, so we have to draw that distinction as well. I submit:
- On public land, two options only: (1) leave the herd to fend for itself. Grazing animals can defend themselves; they've been doing it for millions of years. Or (2) don't leave the herd unattended. If you can't leave a person with the herd, leave a few herd dogs to help them.
- On private land, as long as you aren't targeting endangered species, trapping and hunting predators can be allowed. The property had better be well-fenced and marked with appropriate warning signs, and any accidents are the property-owners responsibility.
Too many ranchers in the US have gotten spoiled. They think they should be allowed to graze their herds on federal land. They think they can leave their herds unattended for months on end, without suffering any significant losses. Both of these are nonsense, but somehow the idealized vision of the western cattle rancher makes them difficult to change.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.