Today, I leave anandtech.

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: aircooled
What he did was legal, but I would have taken a different approach and called animal conrol.

LEGAL STATUS
The California Fish and Game Code classifies skunks as nongame mammals. Nongame mammals that are injuring or threatening property may be taken by the owner or tenant of the premises at any time and in any legal manner. Fish and Game regulations prohibit the relocation of skunks and other wildlife without written permission of the Department of Fish and Game. The prevalence of rabies in the skunk population is one of several major reasons for denying relocation. For further information on the legal status of skunks, contact the California Department of Fish and Game.

/thread Nik.

I fail to see in there where it says the tenant can kill the animal. It says in any legal manner. So that is the law you need to provide to prove what he did was legal.

take
v. took, (tk) tak·en, (tkn) tak·ing, takes
v. tr.
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
To seize with authority; confiscate.
To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
Sports & Games. To acquire in a game or competition; win: took the crown in horseracing.
Sports & Games. To defeat: Our team took the visitors three to one.
Sports. To catch (a ball in play), especially in baseball: The player took it on the fly.

Okay so he is allowed to kill him but it still says in any legal manner so there must be some illegal manners in which to kill the animal.

 

[NuroMancer]

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: GeneValgene

Originally posted by: aircooled
What he did was legal, but I would have taken a different approach and called animal conrol.

LEGAL STATUS
The California Fish and Game Code classifies skunks as nongame mammals. Nongame mammals that are injuring or threatening property may be taken by the owner or tenant of the premises at any time and in any legal manner. Fish and Game regulations prohibit the relocation of skunks and other wildlife without written permission of the Department of Fish and Game. The prevalence of rabies in the skunk population is one of several major reasons for denying relocation. For further information on the legal status of skunks, contact the California Department of Fish and Game.

/thread Nik.

I fail to see in there where it says the tenant can kill the animal. It says in any legal manner. So that is the law you need to provide to prove what he did was legal.

take
v. took, (tk) tak·en, (tkn) tak·ing, takes
v. tr.
To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
To seize with authority; confiscate.
To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
Sports & Games. To acquire in a game or competition; win: took the crown in horseracing.
Sports & Games. To defeat: Our team took the visitors three to one.
Sports. To catch (a ball in play), especially in baseball: The player took it on the fly.

Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Jesus some of you people need to chill the fvck out.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

Again how did he mistreat and abuse the animal? He put it down the sleeping pills, the most humane way possible. Animal control would have done the same. The OP pretty saved himself the hassle of waiting for animal control to arrive and paying $50.

Did you read what drugs and how much of each that he gave it? That's humane? I hardly agree. If he was humane about it, why did he let it out of the cage, watch it walk around, fall into the pool, and let it drown? That's not humane, that's toying with it. He was entertaining himself at the expense of the animal.

 

[novasatori]

So lets try a two scenarios

1.)Drug skunk, release it. It almost drowns but you scoop it out and next day its gone.

2.)Trap skunk, shoot it, not a fatal wound, skunk bleeds to death in cage.


Which is less humane?

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
Jesus some of you people need to chill the fvck out.

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as it doesn?t resort to childish name calling you silly ass hole.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: Nik
Did you read what drugs and how much of each that he gave it? That's humane? I hardly agree. If he was humane about it, why did he let it out of the cage, watch it walk around, fall into the pool, and let it drown? That's not humane, that's toying with it. He was entertaining himself at the expense of the animal.

Or he just had second thoughts about the whole thing and was hoping the skunk would just go away. This is probably what really happened anyway.

 

[NuroMancer]

I would be interested to know what affect the drugs had on the skunk. Who knows if they effect an animal differently then a human.

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

He put the skunk to sleep with sleeping pills. It did not drown. Animal Control would have
come by and given it a shot of barbituates into its left forearm which would have killed it, just like they do to stray dogs. How is that mistreating and abusing?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: labgeek

Originally posted by: Nik
So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

Nik, you OF ALL PEOPLE, have no right to say what someone else will and won't pay.

You missed my point.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: novasatori
What do you think animal control would have done with it?

They can't relocate it and I find it hard to believe they would have gone around the corner and released it back into a residential area.

Animal Control can't relocate it? For christ's sake they're part of the government. They can do whatever they goddamn want to. They DO relocate animals. It's their job. What part of "Animal Control" do you not understand?

What part of the spreading rabies part do you not understand?

Skunks aren't predatory. They'll give you rabies if they bite you, but they don't run around biting things without being attacked, spraying their attacker, trying to get away, failing, THEN biting. You don't get rabies from getting sprayed.

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

He put the skunk to sleep with sleeping pills. It did not drown. Animal Control would have
come by and given it a shot of barbituates into its left forearm which would have killed it, just like they do to stray dogs. How is that mistreating and abusing?

He did it not for necessity but for amusement and that is where the line was crossed.

 

[rbrandon]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

Again how did he mistreat and abuse the animal? He put it down the sleeping pills, the most humane way possible. Animal control would have done the same. The OP pretty saved himself the hassle of waiting for animal control to arrive and paying $50.

Did you read what drugs and how much of each that he gave it? That's humane? I hardly agree. If he was humane about it, why did he let it out of the cage, watch it walk around, fall into the pool, and let it drown? That's not humane, that's toying with it. He was entertaining himself at the expense of the animal.

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
Jesus some of you people need to chill the fvck out.

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as it doesn?t resort to childish name calling you sill ass hole.

Your hypocripsy is unbelievable.

 

[DurocShark]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

He put the skunk to sleep with sleeping pills. It did not drown. Animal Control would have
come by and given it a shot of barbituates into its left forearm which would have killed it, just like they do to stray dogs. How is that mistreating and abusing?

If he put the skunk to sleep with pills, how come it crawled out of the cage when he opened the cage? Because it wasn't asleep. Why did he open the cage? For his entertainment because he wanted to see how the animal would act while drugged. How could a "put to sleep" animal crawl out of the cage, fall in the pool, then disappear the next morning? Oh, right, because the OP didn't put it to sleep.

 

[Viper GTS]

Some of you guys have seriously warped views of reality.

Was drugging it the smart thing to do? No.

Was it animal cruelty? No.

Personally I'd have just shot it, when you live trap a skunk you don't exactly have a lot of options.

BTW nobody TRIES to live trap skunks, he was probably trying to catch a stray cat or something. Once he had trapped it he had a bit of a predicament (which he handled poorly, but not to the point of cruelty).

Some of you city dwellers need to quit being so damn helpless. A trapped skunk is something you can deal with yourself.

Viper GTS

 

[mwtgg]

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

 

[HBalzer]

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: HBalzer

Originally posted by: MartyMcFly3
Jesus some of you people need to chill the fvck out.

There is nothing wrong with healthy debate as long as it doesn?t resort to childish name calling you sill ass hole.

Your hypocripsy is unbelievable.

I was kidding hah hah.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

Again how did he mistreat and abuse the animal? He put it down the sleeping pills, the most humane way possible. Animal control would have done the same. The OP pretty saved himself the hassle of waiting for animal control to arrive and paying $50.

Did you read what drugs and how much of each that he gave it? That's humane? I hardly agree. If he was humane about it, why did he let it out of the cage, watch it walk around, fall into the pool, and let it drown? That's not humane, that's toying with it. He was entertaining himself at the expense of the animal.

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Well, first the OP said it drown. Then the OP tried covering his tracks by saying it disappeared the next morning. I simply choose to believe the original story of it drowning.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: DurocShark

Originally posted by: rbrandon

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Exactly.

As some are fond of repeating, the OP is *not* a vet. So how would he know whether it's dead?

Why was he administering drugs?

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: mwtgg

Originally posted by: NuroMancer
Again, don't go look this up, find a definition and call it law. It doesn't work that way. The fact that it has multiple possible definitions means that it is open to interpritation.

You would be wrong

The defintion of "take" as per 16 U.S.C.§ 1532(19) is "The term ?take? means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct."

For the dense that means it's open season on skunks.

Nobody is going to bitch about him killing a skunk.

Now if he were burning it alive while trapped in the cage I would have issue with that (as would any reasonable person).

Viper GTS

 

[skace]

Apparently, most people around here don't know how individuals deal with pests.

 

[novasatori]

He said it was gone the next morning in his original thread, I read it myself.

I doubt that night/next morning investigators came, so I doubt he's covering his tracks.

 

[neutralizer]

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: neutralizer

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: rbrandon

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: labgeek
What I like... giving sleeping pills = cruelty.

Last time I checked, wasn't OD'ing on sleeping pills the "easy painless way" to commit suicide? You just go to sleep and not wake up. So what he should have shot it instead?

Nah, the cruelty part is where he drugged it AFTER he already had it trapped. Trap it, take it off the property, and release it like the law says you're supposed to in California. Not trap it, drug it, release it next to the pool, let it drown, etc.

ACtually, if you bothered to READ the California code on this, it specifically says NOT TO RELEASE IT WHEREVER YOU WANT because of it spreading rabies to any other animals in the area you drop it off. Also, if you had bothered to READ (I know it's hard, try though) CAlifornia animal control charges you 50 bucks to neutralize it. they dont pick these things up. I'll tell you what, next time i trap a skunk, how bout YOU reach into your pockets and pay the fee so it could be done the "right" way. I don't think you would, though, so piss off with your bleeding-heart preaching.

So you're saying that it's better to mistreat and abuse the animal because you can't be bothered to pay $50?

Again how did he mistreat and abuse the animal? He put it down the sleeping pills, the most humane way possible. Animal control would have done the same. The OP pretty saved himself the hassle of waiting for animal control to arrive and paying $50.

Did you read what drugs and how much of each that he gave it? That's humane? I hardly agree. If he was humane about it, why did he let it out of the cage, watch it walk around, fall into the pool, and let it drown? That's not humane, that's toying with it. He was entertaining himself at the expense of the animal.

You need to sit back, take a breath, and read the post again. IT DID NOT DROWN he scooped it out of the pool and it walked off. Focus on the words IT DID NOT DROWN.

Well, first the OP said it drown. Then the OP tried covering his tracks by saying it disappeared the next morning. I simply choose to believe the original story of it drowning.

Well when you fish something out of the water after being on sleeping pills and its not moving, it's probably dead. When it gets up and leaves the next day, the OP gets to revise his statement.