A Coyote Castration Joke via Ace of Spades

This joke is via ACE OF SPADESSaturday Overnight Open Thread (8/28/21) Limited Content Edition:

The Sierra Club and the U.S. Forest Service were presenting an alternative to the Wyoming ranchers for controlling the coyote population. It seems that after years of the ranchers using the tried-and-true method of shooting or trapping the predators, the Sierra Club had a “more humane” solution to this issue. What they were proposing was for the animals to be captured alive. The males would then be castrated and let loose again.

This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U.S. Forest Service.

All of the ranchers thought about this amazing idea for a couple of minutes.

Finally an old fellow wearing a big cowboy hat in the back of the conference room stood up, tipped his hat back and said:

“Son, I don’t think you understand our problem here… these coyotes ain’t fuckin’ our sheep… they’re eatin’ them!”

The meeting never really got back to order. 

After seeing this in the joke:

  • This was ACTUALLY proposed by the Sierra Club and by the U.S. Forest Service

I had to find out if this were true, and if so, catalog it…. at 6am on Saturday morning. Because I have some thorough “bug” in me that loves the political enough that I simply cannot move on after a laugh.

Here is a PDF paper by The University of Wyoming’s Neurobiology Program, the Zoology and Physiology Department, at the AZA Wildlife Contraception Center, Saint Louis Zoo, St. Louis, Missouri: “Chemical Castration of the Coyote”

Coyotes have been and continue to be significant predators of livestock, mainly domestic sheep. Primary control of depredating coyotes has been by lethal removal. This method has been met with mixed reviews mainly due to both public opposition and limited effectiveness of lethal control.

[….]

Therefore, controlling reproduction may be a more socially acceptable and effective tool for managing predatory behaviors of coyotes.

BTW, I paid a buck to get past a “pay-wall” for the following [effin] story. Grrrr.

Coyote Contraception A Potential Alternative (BILLINGS GAZETTE)

(Associated Press, Sep 8, 2012) JACKSON, Wyo. — A University of Wyoming research team is exploring using contraception as an alternative — and possibly more effective — solution to controlling coyotes.

The group, led by zoology doctoral candidate Marjie MacGregor, displayed its research at the International Conference on Fertility Control in Wildlife held recently in Jackson.

The technique uses deslorelin, a hormone that renders coyotes sterile.

Coyotes tend to prey on larger animals, including domestic sheep, pronghorn antelope and mule deer, more heavily when they have pups, MacGregor said. Because coyotes quickly fill territory left empty when their counterparts are gunned down, contraception has potential to reduce depredation better than killing, she said.

“The whole issue of coyote control is somewhat off the radar in Jackson Hole, where there’s limited animal agriculture,” MacGregor said.

“I’m not sure if Jackson Hole people think about how we manage coyotes across the state of Wyoming,” she said. “They are overshadowed by the larger predators.”

Numbers from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services show coyote depredation across the state is a major issue.

From 1998 to 2008, Wildlife Services killed more than 77,000 coyotes in Wyoming — the second highest state total, trailing just Montana. The carnivore comprised some 94 percent of all the mammalian predators the agency killed in Wyoming during those 10 years.

A small percentage of the total coyote population, estimated at 50,000 to 80,000 in Wyoming, is killed each year, Wildlife Service’s state director Rod Krischke said.

Wildlife Services hasn’t removed coyotes from Teton County “in many years,” Krischke said.

The agency director was familiar with the research and agreed with MacGregor’s premise that contraception could be an effective means of reducing depredation.

“Basically, if you reduce the reproduction capabilities then you have fewer mouths to feed,” Krischke said. “The hope’s that the territorial coyotes would maintain their territory even though they’re not having pups.”

According to MacGregor’s paper, “Chemical Castration of the Coyote,” studies conducted in Utah and Colorado confirm that lamb and pronghorn fawn survival rates are higher in sterile versus intact coyote territories.

However, surgical sterilization programs — the only proven method — are not cost effective, the paper said.

Chemical sterilization is intriguing because of its lower cost and because it could potentially be used on a large number of coyotes, MacGregor said.

“The most important step is making sure the drug works — that we can stop the animal from reproducing,” she said.

While looking at all this, I came across a funny idea for making light of fender benders… enjoy, lol:

Sen. Ted Cruz Makes Sierra Club President Aaron Mair Squirm

Keep in mind that ONLY 65 SCIENTISTS make up the 97% ~ I believe there are more scientists in the world that think Tupac is alive.

Some more information via The Lid:

…At one point in the exchange Sen. Cruz mentioned that the study, which concluded that 97% of scientists agreed with the climate change hypothesis, was bogus.  He was totally correct. The results of the study which declared the near unanimity was totally misrepresented by the study’s author and the media.

The study reporting the 97% consensus “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature”  by John Cook, and friends under the halo of the University of Queensland was published in 2013 and according to Watts Up With That when the source data for the study was published on line the University of Queensland got so worried, they threatened a  lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal.

The way the study was conducted was Cook and his buddies looked at peer reviewed studies and classified them a either agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothesis. The 97% figure was really 97% of the studies they reviewed. However investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them

Popular Tech. looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, vigorous skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97-percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, “That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American, reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%.

Watts Up With That has a story on this, as well as well as more information found at Climate Depot.

Marc Morano of Climate Depot Slices and Dices AGW Apologist

The gentleman Mr. Morano was responding to in the video below is the Director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune. Brune made the point that receiving money from oil and gas was bad. Morano turned the tables not by arguing that oil and gas do not in fact give monies to these groups… instead he used the premise Brune put forward to his advantage:

Implied premise by Brune: “It is bad to receive money from oil/gas”;
Morano’s implied premise: “Okay, fine, if bad for ‘a,’ why not ‘b’.”

“….he’s [Brune] mentioning funding by the way which I think is funny. The Sierra Club took 26 million from natural gas and Michael has the audacity to try to imply that skeptics are fossil fuel funded.”

Oooops!

See Climate Depot

Here is the New York Times on the issue of the Sierra Club taking “dirty” money (see also Time Magazine’s revelation on the matter):

The recent disclosure of the Sierra Club’s secret acceptance of $26 million in donations from people associated with a natural gas company has revived an uncomfortable debate among environmental groups about corporate donations and transparency.

The gifts from the company, Chesapeake Energy, have drawn criticism from some environmentalists. “Sleeping with the enemy” was a comment much forwarded on Twitter posts about the undisclosed arrangement.

“Runners shouldn’t smoke, priests shouldn’t touch the kids, and environmentalists should never take money from polluters,” John Passacantando, a former director of Greenpeace who is now an environmental consultant, said in an interview.

Yet the donations to the Sierra Club, reported by Time magazine’s Ecocentric blog and a blog called Corporate Crime Reporter, have plenty of precedents. Between 2004 and 2006, the National Audubon Society accepted $2.1 million from the chemical giant Monsanto to find a strategy for ensuring the safety of waterfowl near industrial farms using pesticides, for example.

The Environmental Defense Fund was an early adopter of the partnership model, working two decades ago with McDonald’s to stop using polystyrene clamshells for packaging, thus eliminating tens of thousands of tons of waste. Later it teamed with Fedex to reduce the emissions of its truck fleet. But it accepts no donations from corporate partners, its leadership says.

…read more…

Two Steps Back, One Step Forward

(Via Common Sense Evaluation) Electric cars might pollute much more than petrol or diesel-powered cars, according to new research.

The Norwegian University of Science and Technology study found greenhouse gas emissions rose dramatically if coal was used to produce the electricity.

Electric car factories also emitted more toxic waste than conventional car factories, their report in the Journal of Industrial Ecology said.

“The production phase of electric vehicles proved substantially more environmentally intensive,” the report said, comparing it to how petrol and diesel cars are made.

“The global warming potential from electric vehicle production is about twice that of conventional vehicles.”…..

Here is a past encounter (January 2013) between Morano and Brune, Via Climate Depot:

 


 

PIERS MORGAN, HOST:

President Obama is making the fight against extreme weather part of his second term agenda. He believes that science proves it has a human cause. With me now is Marc Morano, editor in chief of ClimateDepot.com, and Michael Brune. He’s the executive director of the Sierra Club.

Welcome to you both. Michael — Marc, I’ll start with you. When I last spoke to you about this, we had a pretty fiery debate about it. And you were impeccably opposed to any suggestion that there’s any real science to confirm global warming or genuine climate change. So rather than me get involved with this, I’m going to rest my weary voice box and let Michael tell you why there is science.

Michael, over to you.

MICHAEL BRUNE, THE SIERRA CLUB:

Sure, well, actually I don’t want to waste any time on this. The science is settled. We noticed that last year we had record numbers of wildfires throughout the Mountain West, as you cited; 61 percent of the country suffered a crippling drought. We had Superstorm Sandy with 1,000-mile diameter storm hitting the east coast, flooded my parents house, caused billions of dollars worth of damage.

The reality is that extreme weather is here. Our climate has begun to be destabilized. The good news is that we can do something about it. We have solutions to the cause of climate change. And those solutions will both help keep our families safe and help our economy grow at the same time.

MORGAN:

OK. Marc, there you have it. What do you say to that?

MARC MORANO, CLIMATEDEPOT.COM:

I say you look at the peer reviewed literature. We now know a study in journal “Nature” show that there’s 60 years, no trend in droughts. In fact, there was a decline in droughts in the U.S., except the most recent one in 2012, which wasn’t even as big as the one in the 1950s or the 1930s.

In terms of flood, 80 to 117 [correction 127] years, there’s no trend in floods. Big tornadoes are down dramatically since the 1950s — F3 or larger. And hurricanes, eight years now — the longest period without a major land falling category 3 or larger hurricane. Eight years, the longest stetch since 1900. So if you start looking at these measures —

 

MORGAN:

Answer me this point. You wouldn’t dispute there’s been increased acceleration in CO2, right?

MORANO:

No, CO2 is rising. Global temperature has now stalled for 15 or 16 years. And that is — now James Hanson of NASA has admitted at least decade of no warming, or as he said flat lining temperatures. This is an embarrassment right now.

So the whole movement has shifted to extreme storms. That’s what they’re trying to focus on now. Evidence is everywhere when you look for extremes. But the bottom line is we have always had extreme weather. In the 1970s, the CIA report and “Newsweek” and all the people worried about a coming Ice Age blamed extreme weather, droughts and bad weather and crop failure on global cooling. Now they have reversed and they are blaming the same phenomenon on global warming. It’s very convenient.