racoon on fire escape

Rose wrote: I did read it carefully and I thought it was pretty horrifying, honestly. Strychnine in a juice box is okay to joke about? Really?

joking? where was i joking? what are you reading?

Rose wrote: Look, I have a kitten on my lap and a copy of Diet for a New America on my bookshelf.

i hope the cat brings you great joy. companion animals are a wonderful thing. i myself am an unabashed carnivore. i am not sure if the book is pro-vegetarian, but i fear for all of its focus on exposing agri-business that it may play too much like an PETA campaign.

Rose wrote: I gave my grandmother's fur coat to a homeless shelter and I've given money to PETA.

i can't stand PETA. they have a penchant for cutting off their nose to spite their face, and they spend too much time covering their own tracks sometimes. i am of the personal opinion that if i am going to support any organization (political, religious, or otherwise) that i should at the very least embrace the tenets they profess. since PETA, and many other animal-rights organizations go so far as to say that animals ought to have equal rights to human beings, and that no creature should be owned, i can't be so quick to support them since i don't agree with them. and since you've got the kitten, i guess you don't, either. it's just a suggestion for anyone out there, but i know organzations such as the HSUS (humane society) or the ASPCA or the WCS (wildlife conservation society)don't have such radical views but also need donations to stay afloat, and i am of the professional opinion that your donations will go further at any of the aforementioned organizations.

Rose wrote: I spend more on medical care for my animals than I do on myself. But I still think that all the outrage being expressed in this thread is basically fake.

i am certain you do care for your animals, and it's admirable that you do so much for them, even putting their care ahead of your own. however, to suggest that my outrage is basically fake when i spend my entire career taking care of the welfare of all animals is snappish and presumptuous of you. i have worked with rehabbing wildlife, including animals that were shot (hawks), electrocuted (turtle), and burned (snake). i have seen the horrors of poisonings first-hand (and for the record, the poisoned animals were pets that got into bait left out for rats in the park). i've worked with feral cats in the Slope. i've worked with the offleash dogs, too. i have spent countless hours trying to save their lives and heal their wounds. sometimes they live; sometimes they die. and i do these things without ever expecting a word of thanks. my patients do not speak to me -- i speak for them.

Rose wrote: I still think that the frustration that Kensingtonmom expressed was understandable, and I think it's weird that people are picking out little bits of what she wrote and yes, taking it out of context.

I don't believe that she had any real intention of poisoning the raccoon and more to the point, I don't think that you (or anyone else expressing their great outrage) believed it either.

I believed her -- she sounded pretty clear that she wanted to poison that raccoon, and put in a citation about NYS law and the destruction of wildlife. Later she backed off, and expressed enjoyment at being a troll (her words, not mine) and getting people worked up.

I'm sorry that Kmom has provoked a fight between Rose and shishkab . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Rose wrote: Well, I don't want to fight with shishkab.

I perceive that there is an anti-child thing going on on this board sometimes, and it bothers me. I think that some of that was coming out in this thread -- in that some people were equating noisy toddlers with a wild animal potentially carrying a fatal and highly-contagious disease and behaving aggressively and erratically. I think that people like to gang up on Kensingtonmom because she's posted in defense of double strollers.

AHA! Thank you. I agree! People love to hate K-mom and that is the main reason I stay as a guest. I am no shrinking violet, but it seems when I bring up a subject somewhere in the thread some anti-child thing comes up. It is absurd the anger generated over a crazy, potentially sick raccoon. And I did not provoke a fight between Rose and ShishKebab. This has just gotten so crazy this thread. I am always defending myself by words taken out of context or explained two posts later. Sigh

i honestly believe that kensingtonmom would poison the raccoon. what is frustrating is that her story is continuously changing, in this post and others.

hey we could feed the homeless of the world with our over populated racoon and rats and pigeons. poisoning them would defeat that fact . unless you want a bunch of dead people too.

Flexichick wrote: Lately whenever I read this board I think "shit, this stuff makes my family look normal"

Sad thing is, that thought never crosses my mind...

Drano wrote:

A FEDERAL OFFENSE to kill a racoon?

Even in the state of Florida, where self-defense reigns? I thought in Jed Bush's state you were free to legally blast the brains out of anything you perceived as a threat. A thief, your X-wife, vicious baby raccoons – they all better watch out if they cross your path in Florida.

kensingtonmom wrote: [quote=WhyFi]
[quote=kmom]Also I jumped to the rabies conclusion only because I have encountered a rabid raccoon in the past and it was weird like this one.

It was examined and you were made privy to the results?

Yes. After the neighbor shot it, the state police came (and the neighbor got no fine for killing a wild animal by the way) and took the carcass to a lab near Cornell and the test came back positive for rabies. Honestly this cross-examination is absurd.

If you're going to take offense, be more specific when you post or do post at all - I'm not cross examining you - I'm just asking a question. Some people throw around words like 'rabid' to describe a behavior, while rabies may or may not be present. I was only asking for clarification in that sense.

And I do apologize if, after stating that you were going to take the life of an animal, people asking you 'why?' puts you out so much... :roll:

If you're going to take offense, be more specific when you post or do post at all - I'm not cross examining you - I'm just asking a question. Some people throw around words like 'rabid' to describe a behavior, while rabies may or may not be present. I was only asking for clarification in that sense.

And I do apologize if, after stating that you were going to take the life of an animal, people asking you 'why?' puts you out so much

Hmmm. She explained 6 days ago, in her post on 10/6 at 11:30 PM, why she wanted the raccoon killed/removed (because she believed it to be rabid), and in that same post, she explained that she or somebody she knew had once shot a similar raccoon, which was subsequently tested and found positive for rabies. So, I'm wondering what you meant when you said she hasn't been specific enough.