WOW Big Govt gone wrong: Vulture nests in yard, endangers kids; Govt: CANT touch it!!

[The T]

It isn't thuggish to refuse to share your living space with carnivorous carrion birds.

Do you know how vultures defend themselves? They projectile vomit.

I guess they should have thought about that before they started feeding her.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

All of us do dumb things sometimes. How many of us have fed the emaciated feral cat out of pity only to discover the folly of that when we became innundated with feral cats? So should we be stuck with the result of our folly? Or call the humane association to come collect the cats that we cannot afford to feed and are producing unacceptable risks?

Of course it is tempting to offer a treat to a wild creature out of interest or just for fun and then only later discover that the consequences for that were not at all what we intended.

The point here is not that the people fed the bird. At the time of course they had no idea what the long term consequences of that would be or what risks they would be inviting for their children and/or ability to use their own property.

There have always been, will always be, and should be consequences for the choices we make. But nobody should be held hostage by an uninvited wild creature on their own property. And the State should not tell us that we have no right to protect our property, our peace, our pets, our loved ones not necessarily in that order.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5eJIcoOWtM"]Rep. Franson compares feeding food stamp recipients to feeding wild animals - YouTube[/ame]

Truth? You bet.

People should be responsible for themselves...and yes if they screw up thier exercise of Liberty...WE will give them a hand up to get them back on thier feet...but we expect those recieving it to get the message and use what they receive wisely...and NOT to use it as a way of life [Safety net becoming a hammock to base housekeeping on]...

It's a pretty simple request I think...

Back to animals...

“The animals must learn to fend for themselves if they are to survive and thrive. When you feed animals, they become dependent and no longer function as nature intends.”

Are we not a few steps above animals in our thinking? Actions? Or are we in regression?

 

[Peach]

"We cannot authorize" does NOT mean criminal penalties. There may be, but I can think of several ways to get the bird away without harming the bird.

Correct. The OP exhibits an irrational overreaction to a situation where a reasonable resolution is possible. Instead of exploring ways to find a remedy agreeable to all, the OP contrives rightwing partisan nonsense about ‘big government’ determined to violate our civil liberties.

Pathetic.

So it appears; trying to find out WHO can authorize was not explored.

 

[JoeB131]

It's only one summer. Not seeing what the problem here is, exactly.

The problem is it's their property and they don't want it there. That's the only reason you need. End of story.

There's no such thing as an absolute property right...

We have laws meant to protect endangered species for a reason.

Some of those laws don't work, but that's a different discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's only one summer. Not seeing what the problem here is, exactly.

The problem is it's their property and they don't want it there. That's the only reason you need. End of story.

There's no such thing as an absolute property right...

We have laws meant to protect endangered species for a reason.

Some of those laws don't work, but that's a different discussion.

We also have a Constitution intended to protect the unalienable rights of the people including, but not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders considered one's private property to be sacrosanct and untouchable by the Federal government.

Whether a potentially dangerous bird is to be allowed to live in one's back yard should be the decision of the property owner and not dictated by the Federal government. If the government can tell us that we HAVE to allow a dangerous bird to live in our back yard, it can dicate whatever it wants to be on our property. And we have no property rights at all. I have no problem with the government requiring us to notify the appropriate authorities to remove the bird, preferable harmlessly and with as little trauma as possible. I have a HUGE problem with a bird having more rights than I do on my own property.

 

[The T]

The problem is it's their property and they don't want it there. That's the only reason you need. End of story.

There's no such thing as an absolute property right...

We have laws meant to protect endangered species for a reason.

Some of those laws don't work, but that's a different discussion.

We also have a Constitution intended to protect the unalienable rights of the people including, but not limited to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Founders considered one's private property to be sacrosanct and untouchable by the Federal government.

Whether a potentially dangerous bird is to be allowed to live in one's back yard should be the decision of the property owner and not dictated by the Federal government. If the government can tell us that we HAVE to allow a dangerous bird to live in our back yard, it can dicate whatever it wants to be on our property. And we have no property rights at all. I have no problem with the government requiring us to notify the appropriate authorities to remove the bird, preferable harmlessly and with as little trauma as possible. I have a HUGE problem with a bird having more rights than I do on my own property.

Indeed. The Camel's nose is under the tent, and that nose deserves to be stomped upon...with vigor.