CA FINALLY Gets Something Right (schools, best, money)

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

Obviously you need a fact check. Less than 400 total with 181 in the wild?

After they are immunized, hand fed, eggs raised in an incubator and have baby sitters out in the wild. That is not thriving.

Further
additions to the wild population come from chicks fledged from natural nests by breeding pairs
that formed on their own after release. In Arizona birds subsist on food they find themselves for
much of the year

http://ca.audubon.org/pdf/AOU_CONDOR_REPORT_Aug08_final.pdf (broken link)

Let me guess, the National Audobon society and the AOU aren't credible right? What excuses are you going to have now?

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

http://ca.audubon.org/pdf/AOU_CONDOR_REPORT_Aug08_final.pdf (broken link)

Let me guess, the National Audobon society and the AOU aren't credible right? What excuses are you going to have now?

Are you kidding me with that post? HHMMMMM Lets test the thriving supposition based on information from the very non partisan Audobon Society. To Quote from your own article:



"California, Arizona, Utah and Baja California, Mexico.
Today, in the summer of 2008, there are more than 300 condors, more than 150 of which are in
the wild. The wild birds face severe challenges, however, and survive only through constant
human assistance and intervention. The intensive management required to maintain the birds in
nature, as well as the ongoing monitoring and captive breeding programs, are tremendously
expensive and become more so as the population grows."


This was in the first paragraph of the introduction. Similar statements are found throughout the report. Sorry thriving is not the word to describe this program. Fringe Environmental Wackadoo money pit program is a more appropriate definition.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by bulldogdad

Are you kidding me with that post? HHMMMMM Lets test the thriving supposition based on information from the very non partisan Audobon Society. To Quote from your own article:



"California, Arizona, Utah and Baja California, Mexico.
Today, in the summer of 2008, there are more than 300 condors, more than 150 of which are in
the wild. The wild birds face severe challenges, however, and survive only through constant
human assistance and intervention. The intensive management required to maintain the birds in
nature, as well as the ongoing monitoring and captive breeding programs, are tremendously
expensive and become more so as the population grows."


This was in the first paragraph of the introduction. Similar statements are found throughout the report. Sorry thriving is not the word to describe this program. Environmental Wackadoo money pit program is a more appropriate definition.

This does not mean the birds are not thriving. This means that like all reintroductions of critically endangered species, continued support is needed until there are enough bird in a given population so that monitoring is no longer required. You clearly do not understand this. The Whooping Crane is another example, one of it's reintroduced populations no longer requires close monitoring but others do. The Trumpeter Swan is scarcely monitored at all anymore and is sustaining itself after having been endangered, Peregrine Falcons are nearing that point and they were treated like the Condors are now. The difference is that Condors reproduce much more slowly. Why are you trying to know something you clearly don't know?

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

This does not mean the birds are not thriving. This means that like all reintroductions of critically endangered species, continued support is needed until there are enough bird in a given population so that monitoring is no longer required. You clearly do not understand this. The Whooping Crane is another example, one of it's reintroduced populations no longer requires close monitoring but others do. The Trumpeter Swan is scarcely monitored at all anymore and is sustaining itself after having been endangered, Peregrine Falcons are nearing that point and they were treated like the Condors are now. The difference is that Condors reproduce much more slowly. Why are you trying to know something you clearly don't know?

You can believe any fantasy that you like. Its a free country. The California Condor will never again be a viable wild species. After millions and millions of dollars of tax payer money wasted it will be relegated to wildlife parks and zoo attractions with captive breeding programs to maintain the species.

Maybe some day it will be cross bred with another species or genetically engineered to increase viability in the wild. Until that day its just a plain waste of money and resources better spent on other species that actually contribute positively to the ecosystem.

[.highnlite]

Gentoo, apparently the work to save the condors is, like climate change, a liberal plot to destroy or at least socialize America. There is no reasoning with the righties, they operate on beliefs not facts.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

Gentoo, apparently the work to save the condors is, like climate change, a liberal plot to destroy or at least socialize America. There is no reasoning with the righties, they operate on beliefs not facts.

Nothing of worth to contribute again I see. At least Gentoo however misguided his/her posts maybe is at least providing information and arguments to support the debate of the topic within this thread. You could always go climb a mountain, feed the condors and check for lead laden carcasses if you are looking for something meaningful to contribute.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

But you are still wrong on most of your facts, that is easily shown, you and DonB are cosmic soulmates.

All your personal attacks can't change that.

The condors are thriving, that is a good thing, and should be a good thing what ever your political ideology.

Remember when Conservatives Conserved? TR would be very pleased that we have brought the condor back from near extinction.

Did you own The Stuft Shirt Restaurant in Newport Beach or did they just name it after you when you were young?

It was right across the bay from us, on Coast Highway. We could dock there to eat.

http://www.latimemachines.com/066nz.jpg (broken link)

http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/images/spaceball.gif (broken link)

[.highnlite]

It was right across the bay from us, on Coast Highway. We could dock there to eat.

Back when you were hunting for sport?

Try this Curmie, get your facts straight, then post.

Nothing of worth to contribute again I see. At least Gentoo however misguided his/her posts maybe is at least providing information and arguments to support the debate of the topic within this thread. You could always go climb a mountain, feed the condors and check for lead laden carcasses if you are looking for something meaningful to contribute.

One cannot have a discussion with an ideologue, a "true believer"

The facts on which the true believer bases his conclusions must not be derived from his experience or observation but from holy writ."

Conservative ideologues continually show that their conclusions are not based on fact or observation, but by what they think should be true.

Now, before you dismiss what I say as more liberal hogwash, may I remind you that I am no liberal, but merely the last member of the Bullmoose Party, it would be hard to fit a knife blade between what I think, and what Teddy Roosevelt thought. Back to condors, he worked hard all his life to conserve what he called "Citizen Bird". Works for me.

Or as Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

Jesus would have considered condors as his brothers and sisters as both were created by god.

And conversely"Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

and from Genesis;

God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth,

[.highnlite]

Originally Posted by native56

Whenever I hear greenies talk about saving endangered species I can't help but thinking about the fly that stopped development in Riverside:

http://www.uchastings.edu/faculty-ad...Loving_Fly.pdf

I mean we're talking about a FLY for pete's sake.

Stopping development is like stopping cancer, a darned good thing to do.

[Bulldogdad]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

One cannot have a discussion with an ideologue, a "true believer"

Conservative ideologues continually show that their conclusions are not based on fact or observation, but by what they think should be true.

Now, before you dismiss what I say as more liberal hogwash, may I remind you that I am no liberal, but merely the last member of the Bullmoose Party, it would be hard to fit a knife blade between what I think, and what Teddy Roosevelt thought. Back to condors, he worked hard all his life to conserve what he called "Citizen Bird". Works for me.

Or as Jesus said, "Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me."

Jesus would have considered condors as his brothers and sisters as both were created by god.

And conversely"Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

and from Genesis;

Platitudes of meaningless quotes and information cobbled together are about as useful as Condors in the wild. The Bull Moose party is extinct in the wild. The Condor is next. Realities are some times hard to grasp especially when tied up with nostalgia.