Thats it- next year i am buying a pellet gun. dont care how much paperwork i have to go through.

can someone recommend the least dangerous pellet gun that will kill or maim a squirrel.

my nectarine tree, a week before the squirrels decimated it.

Personally, I've had great success live trapping them. They are stupid and greedy, and will not hesitate to go into the live trap for peanut butter, birdseed, or black walnuts. Generally, I can set a trap in the morning near a tree trunk squirrels frequent, and be virtually 100% guaranteed of trapping one by that evening.

What you do with them after you trap them is up to you. I understand in most states, you have to humanely kill them, not legal to relocate them.

Of course, these solutions aren't mutually exclusive -- traps, guns, poisons in combination might be your best solution of all.

With a modern pellet gun it is hard to just maim a squirrel, the pellets are so fast and cause so much damage. I hit a squirrel in the leg a few weeks ago and it was dead in 5 minutes. Also I would say with bait-and-shoot technique (put the bait out in a good spot to shoot) you will have very good chances to make a big dent in their numbers. I recommend a .22 caliber pellet gun with as much fps (feet per second, i.e. speed) as you can afford and a good scope. Use pellets designed for small game, I use Crow Magnum pellets. My gun is a Beeman brand but there are many other good brands.

Scott

A pellet gun is not a firearm. It should be legal in most areas, but check before you buy. I found the pellet gun much more effective than a BB gun. Get a pellet "rifle". They are much easier to shoot. One shot usually kills instantly. Pellet rifles are VERY quiet and don't kick.

If you use traps, drowning the trap (squirrel included) in a garbage can full of water, ends the issue with that thief forever.

I used to think they were cute, and I even fed them. But now it is war, and I'm winning(G).

Don't worry, you will not eliminate the species. But you may be able to reduce the numbers in your yard to an acceptable level.

Good luck!!

Lisa

There may be no "perfect" solution, but there are many solutions. If you care at all, there are plenty of options posted here on Gardenweb as well as all over the net.

Lycheeluva, don't give up on finding a better way to attack this problem. Do a search and you can find many posts on Gardenweb about how to deal with the problem. Some posts are from reasonable people with great ideas and some aren't. You county extension agent might possibly be another source of ideas. It couldn't hurt to ask. If you come to the point that you feel you have no other choice but to kill the squirrels, please at least do it in a way that causes the least suffering.

I trap and haul. So far as I know we have no laws against relocating.

Aceofspades - If squirrels are a nuisance, "they may be taken at any time in any manner" according to the NYSDEC, (Look Here and scroll down to #7) but it is illegal to relocate them. I cannot find a link to that bit, but I was told so by a DEC officer. That's just FYI, since it's unlikely any of them will bother to do anything other than give you a warning. "Barrier Islands" on LI? Ocean Parkway between Robert Moses and Jones Beach?

Brandon7 - Precisely what method of execution would you prefer for the furry sumbitches that are invading my attic, chewing on my wiring, and attempting to burn down my house? They have done it 3 times in the past 4 years. I shoot the ones that I can, but I cannot sit in my yard 24/7 with my pellet rifle to defend my home from them, so I trap them and drown them. How should I change my methods to fit your world view? Is poison more humane? Should I try and shoot them in the trap? (Before you answer that one, I invite you to watch a squirrel in a Hav-A-Hart for a minute or so. More frantic than a ferret after a triple espresso.) I respect life, but I'm not going to put my home and family at risk by leaving these rats alive. If that makes me "really cold", so be it.

Methods involving torture are probably some of the least effective methods anyway. There are always more squirrels out there. Finding a solution like aluminum barriers, bird netting, predator scents (whether from actual predators or from a bottle), etc. will often deter more squirrels than you could ever kill with the same amount of effort.

Why not solve two problems at once. Build a shelter over your trees using galvanized hardware cloth, shade cloth, clear poly or a combination. Make the top clear greenhouse UV resistant poly. It lasts 4 yrs. This will keep your plants drier and reduce disease pressure. Make the sides hardware cloth. Build a door and you will be done with the tree rats and birds forever. Shooting or any other solution is partial, very time consuming, and will likely result in making someone unhappy.

I had a shelter like that once and loved it. You would too!! My greenhouse has solved all these problems: a hail two days ago, three spring freezes, birds, javelina, deer, disease and pestilance all vanquished!!!! You can deal with some via a shelter.

The Fruitnut

Brandon7 - "Seal the area"? Did that. With 1/4" hardware cloth. "Unimaginable"? They moved over about 6" and chewed through the aluminum fascia and the board behind it in less than 8 hours. I don't know the actual time it took them because I was at work.

I don't consider it torture to drown them. It takes less than 60 seconds and I actually think that it's quicker and less painful than shooting them. Plus, there's no chance of missing and leaving an injured animal on the loose.

Don't be too hard on Brandon7 -- obviously, he hasn't "been there, done that" with squirrels or some other nuisance.

Let's see -- red squirrel moved into the hood of my Chevy truck when it was a year old, parked it on friday evening after work in the driveway, tried to start it on sunday and got bizzare enginge noises. Red squirrel ran out of the wheel well. It chewed all of the fiberglass insulation on the uderside of the hood and stuffed it amongs the wires it chewed and when it made a nest atop the engine block -- about $400 to fix that, not covered under warranty.

Red Squirrel a few years later decided that the ventilation system of my SUV, which was parked in my driveway and only driven occaisonally, was a great place to store walnuts and acorns. It cost my $200 to clean out the exterior portion enough to get some heat/AC/vent air. They wanted another $800 to clean out the rest of the vent system, but I couldn't afford that at the time.

Last year, the Red Squirrel decided it wanted to move into my garage for the winter, so it chewed itself a nice entrance right through the vinyl siding and boards, up in the corner under the eavestrough. HOW the dumb thing climbed the vinyl siding, I don't know. At least that didn't cost me anything to fix, just had to plug it up and replace a piece of vinyl siding with some I had saved for future repairs.

And, then there was the red squirrel which nested and DIED inside the walls of my garden shed. THAT was pleasant to deal with -- the smell alone was enough to make me sick.

I used to feel bad for all of the poor little critters that people used to hunt and kill, too -- poor things. I think everyone goes through their Cleveland Amory phase. Then, bambi eats your garden, squirrels strip your fruit trees, the blue heron eats $500 worth of koi in one afternoon from your fishpond, and you get real.

Kill them, kill them all. Well, not all of them, but trust me, squirrels and other common vermin like racoons, woodchucks, deer are THRIVING because of human activity -- we've made lots of relatively predator-free spaces for them to live. They're in no danger of extinction. It's probably doing the entire species a benefit to kill the excess, replacing what predators like hawks and so forth would have done in a more balanced, less distrubed ecosystem.

And yes, for the record, it IS illegal here in Michigan to relocate a live-trapped nuisance animal -- you are suppossed to humanely dispose of them on-site. But no, I don't do that, I'm not into killing, either, although there were one or two I would have liked to had I caught them. Mine go for a ride to a nature preserve area at a community college. But, if someone here tells me that I should dispose of them instead, well, I could always do the 'Suzy Math' -- a woman I know named Suzy has an equation: Groundhog + Livetrap + Rainbarrel = Nice Garden.

Brandon7 - My apologies if I came across as confrontational. I know that it's hard to get past a lifetime of conditioning, I had to do it myself. I respect your viewpoint and your conviction in expressing it, but my situation has led me to change my views on suburban squirrels in particular. If it's any consolation, I regularly release the opossums that get into my Hav-A-Hart's since they pose no threat to people or property.

Please do not harm them. That's outrageous and simply cruel.

I had a nice bush of blackberries going. Was planning on picking some yesterday, but was busy all day. Got up this morning to pick some and it was bare except for a few unripe misshaped berries. Looks like the birds had a feast.

These two will do a great job. Just get it scoped and sited in and no problem with head shots all day long.

Benjamin pcp

http://www.airgundepot.com/benjamin-discovery-22.html

Airforce talon

http://www.airforceairguns.com/

If you can't eat nectarines you most certainly can eat squirrel!

Lycheeluva, don't give up on finding a better way to attack this problem. Do a search and you can find many posts on Gardenweb about how to deal with the problem. Some posts are from reasonable people with great ideas and some aren't. You county extension agent might possibly be another source of ideas. It couldn't hurt to ask. If you come to the point that you feel you have no other choice but to kill the squirrels, please at least do it in a way that causes the least suffering.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

For some, they may not be a good shot. Or be able to afford $600 for a nice gun. so drowning is what they CAN do.

The cold hard facts are that the business of Survival is not always nice and pretty - but it is always rooted in putting the preservation of one's own life first.

It is a hard fact of life that the Survivor must be Selfish in order to SURVIVE.

We cannot save others if we have 'not prepared' to save them.

For myself I can barley afford to prepare for the 3 of us. Nor do I gave unlimited space for preparedness supplies for others even if I had more money.

I am lucky that I have a 45' x 75' piece of ground to grow food on...but in realty that is not much land for the 3 of us, so how could it be stretched even further? (I am lucky in the sense that when in L.A. I had much less land.)

Just be authentic with what you do and you can be at peace with whatever the outcome is.

For one to be Successful at Survival understand the importance of all the 'S' words and how one's Success at Survival balances on the interaction of all the 'S' words and by practical application of a Successful Survival philosophy.

And while we do need a modicum of Smarts to be a Successful Survivor...well, let me paraphrase the title of an old post I wrote so it is apropos here:

'Academic Smarts are not the Same as Survival Smarts.'

The realities of being a Successful Survivor are this.

To be Successful at Survival requires one to be Selfish as opposed to Selfless.

It is impossible to be a Saint and Save everyone in the world that has not done their preparedness footwork to Supply their emergency needs.

Just Sharing Some of your emergency Supplies with one other person may put your life in jeopardy.
So now there are two deaths as opposed to one.

But only you can judge how many lives your Supplies can maintain and your desires to be philanthropic can Support.

Don't ever let another person tell you otherwise. The one's doing the browbeating are usually the one's that have done little in the area of preparedness.

But the concept of Sharing goes beyond just Sharing Supplies. It also encompasses Sharing our time and our energies - for Survival can be a full time job just to keep ourselves and our loved one's alive.

We are all human and have limitations, so we can only Spread ourselves so thin before we Start to develop cracks in our health - whether it be mental health or physical health.

The Successful Survivor must accept that the Self must come first. And while it is unfortunate that the foundation of that Success is based in Selfishness and not in philanthropy...that is what the reality of it is.

If we lived in a perfect dream world, then we could wipe out all these unfortunate and unforeseen circumstances that would cause one to have to prepare for possible disasters, upheavals and emergencies.

This book gives goes into detail with this topic of 'Survival Philosophy'.

I highly recommended it...get it from your library

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Book-Survival-revolution-Hurricains/dp/1569801207/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196866051&sr=1-1

Mental preparedness and physical fitness are the foundations of all our Survival quests For the mind guides the body, but an unfit body is not able to respond to the minds guidance.

We become mentally prepared when we are able to use the 7 Skills to defeat the 7 Enemies of Life

The 7 Skills:

Fire Starting
Water Procurement
Shelter Building
Foraging for food
Signaling
First Aid
Self Defense

7 Enemies of Life:

Fear and anxiety
Cold and Heat
Thirst
Hunger
Boredom and Loneliness
Fatigue
Pain and Injury

So in essence, we develop Self confidence by mastering the Skills needed to overcome any Situation that arises to threaten our life.

Let me delve into the concept of Selfish versus Selfless actions a little more. I don't wish to promote the wrong view that being Selfish is the key to being happy and at peace.

As the Taoists tell us...fleas come with the dog. And if one desires to be a Survivalist, then one must accept some fleas to come with the job.

Most humans have a natural desire to help those in need. It is part of their makeup. But we must accept that we have built our world on unsustainable means - a means built artificially on fossil fuel.

And when we live out of balance with natures intended means there is a price to pay to come back in balance with nature. And the price usually extracts pain from us in the adjustment process.

The world is in a death Spiral. It is just how we have built our world over the years. We can't blame any one person for this fact - we are all to blame. It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day.

But seven billion people can't burn the trees!

It has been estimated that for the earth to Sustainably Support its population without fossil fuels a 90% dieoff must occur. I don't know if that figure is right, but I do know humans could not live as they do unless it was funded by artificial means via fossil fuels. Our life on earth has been 'pumped up' via steroids and growth hormones a.k.a. crude oil.

So if this dieoff happens, of course there will be great amounts of pain in the world. But it is natures intended balancing act. It also reminds us that nature does not bow to humans - it is humans that always bow to nature.

Will this dieoff occur? I don't know. Some genius may come to the rescue and find a way to burn water and we can keep consuming carefree. but there is still the question of petrochemical use. Irrespective of burning crude, petroleum is an irreplaceable component of many other products we consume.

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm

Animals live within their intended balance with nature and it is only man that destroys his environment and has to pay the price through pain and Suffering from working against nature.

This is why we humans need moral guidance or a moral conscience since they have a 'free will' of Sorts. If we did not have such a feature we would soon Self-destruct.

Actually it is like this.

We are free to do what we want -- but are not free to want what we want.

All our actions have consequences, and many of our actions produce consequences that end up destroying peace. (both ours and other's peace).

This is what separates us from the animals that run Solely on instinct.

Humans run by instinct as well as moral guidance. And what makes us a human is why we even have to discuss this question of helping others in the first place.

This question of Sustainability is the key to helping one make the tough decision as to whether to help another out with their provisions or energies.

If whatever you offer is available to you in unlimited amounts or amounts that would be hard to deplete, then one may not have to be so concerned with Sharing such bounty. (Although Sharing anything with desperate people also has the potential for Security problems irrespective of the question of Sustainability.)

But whatever way you decide to proceed...be authentic and you can be at peace with your actions.

The 'authenticity acid test' would ask the question; 'Would you do the same thing again knowing the outcome of your actions?'

If you would not do it again, then your actions are not authentic, since you are not at peace with the outcome.

Authenticity is the key to being at peace. For even if you or your loved ones must die early to gratify one's philanthropic desires, then one can be at peace with that outcome if one authentically puts philanthropy above personal Survival.

This all goes back to my quote on Thoreau and the subject of pride...where do we put our pride?

Do we put our pride in helping others first and ourselves and our family Second?

Or do we put our pride in Self preservation?

...In the end you only have to please yourself with your actions...just be authentic with what you do and you can be at peace with whatever the outcome is.

Wow. No wonder the planet is dying. Let's just exterminate all the creatures that contribute to the balance of ecosystems--WHICH ARE KEEPING US ALIVE--and then scream bloody murder when Nature eventually fights back--which it will--and we see that we are losing the battle for survival.

Does NOBODY see how disturbing this idea is? Squirrels as enemies???
Man, it's like entering an alternative universe on this thread.

They will, like any other living entity, expand their population until something happens to stop them. It will be disease, famine, predation, or something else, but sooner or later they, as we, will reach a limit. As a rule, that limit is not particularly charitable. Disease kills slowly; famine is not pleasant; hawks eat their prey alive; early freezes are a relatively gentle end.

In the end we are all dust, but for now all I want to do raise a few apricots, plums, apples and pears for noncommercial use. Diverting squirrels to other food does not work: they have cousins who will come and deal with anything left over. Relocating, in addition to being illegal, simply moves my problem to someone else.

Shooting them carefully works and is relatively humane. I regret the necessity but appreciate the result. Make no mistake: every bit of our existence costs other species, whether through sacrifice of habitat or dimunition of opportunity in other ways. Even a vegan diet costs other species. My approach is direct and honest -I find no pleasure in killing squirrels, but I do know what's going on so that I can have my fruit. Very few people know that, when you think about it.

Best regards,

Mark

Yes, every bit of our existence costs other species. But animals are not "sacrificing" their habitat for us. We're taking it because, quite simply, we want to. As for veganism: most vegans try to have as little impact as possible in terms of harming other creatures.

The nectarine tree shown is still small enough that it could be enclosed in a protective wire cage. Putting something in stout enough to do the job might be kind of pricey but then if it worked, it wouldn't matter how many squirrels came around.

In maritime areas, such as where I live wharf rats also raid fruit trees. In fact, I may have seen them doing this more often than eastern gray squirrels, which to me don't seem to have as much a focus on sweet fruits as the rats. I see squirrels going for nuts etc., whereas a rat in a tree is always after fruit.

>>Quote: The cold hard facts are that the business of Survival is not always nice and pretty - but it is always rooted in putting the preservation of one's own life first.
It is a hard fact of life that the Survivor must be Selfish in order to SURVIVE. <<

All this violence and hatred over nectarines? I don't believe you will die without all of your fruit. Wildlife is supposed to feed off the land. What type of world do you want to live in?

I believe my grandmother would just cut the spoiled part out and use the rest.

Please give your addresses.

BTW, in reality, squirrels do not share. If they did, I would not mind them. They strip trees, taking one bite from a fruit, drop it, break a branch off, take another fruit, bite it, drop it, until the trees are empty and battered. They ruined my Apple crop 2 years ago, taking all the unripe fruit from 11 trees, in 2 days. I found the fruits, discarded, all over the property, with more in my neighbor's yard. That is not hunger, that is greed.

They do not leave anything for the fruit tree owner. I have spent thousands on fruiting plants to provide food for my family and friends. If squirrels took "some" I would not care. But they take it all.

So, I kill every one I can, on my land.

Tough patooties...

I even bought heavy duty wire mesh to enclose my trees against the tree rats. Each roll cost me $250. An enclosed tree is a real problem. It must be constantly pruned, weeded, and anyone working on it must remove a 8' tall, awkward, sharp- edged cage before even getting to the tree. Not practical in any way!!!

Hey, I tried being nice. It did not work. If I see a squirrel on my land, it is fair game.

Lisa

Try growing more variety, something with nuts or acorns, just for them. They won't be interested in your fruit, esp since they just toss it anyway. Around here, I think it's the birds and bugs people complain about with their fruit trees. Maybe cheaper to set out a barrel of peanuts each day, or something to that effect. They'd at least be busy burying them. And full.

I don't know how anyone can kill.

http://www.kania.net/

I agree the natural world is a beautiful thing, and competition and death have been a part of it since the beginning. Watch the whole movie, not just the happy scenes.

Scott

They dump half eaten food because they're rodents and get distracted easily. Instead of picking up the dropped food they go back for a fresh one.

Squirrelheaven,
I know for a fact that you are not alive without killing something. Get off your high horse.

organic_smallhome,
You should read up on squirrels before you preach to others about ecosystems.
You can't over-hunt them. That fact is why many states have year round seasons on them. There is no disruption in killing squirrels.
And you might want to take a look at that "land pyramid", you might find humans in there somewhere.

You inspired me to go out and give my trees an extra spray tomorrow. I was going to let the powdery mildew go on my cherries because I like to be as organic as possible while still getting fruit, but I'm more sick of "green" people preaching their bad science.

The food in my garden replaces food which would otherwise be grown elsewhere and shipped to a store near me. That shipping produces pollution that affects the planet.

The food grown in my own back yard replaces food which I would otherwise have to drive to that store to purchase. That produces more pollution that affects the planet.

The food that I grow produces no waste from packaging. Packaging that affects the planet in landfills and in energy spent to create it.

The food that I grow is grown organically. This prevents chemicals from entering the environment.

My compost pile is fed with tons of material which would normally enter the waste stream every year (and not just my own wastes but the wastes of others in my area who thoughtfully bag them and put them at curbside for my use). All of these things are kept out of the landfills because of my garden.

It *is* my land and I *can* do what I want with it. I cause no ecological damage with my actions. In fact, my actions are designed to (and do) reduce my families' impact on the planet as well as the impact of others. Just because other people make poor choices does not negate my freedom to do as *I* see fit. And when it comes to squirrels or other animals eating crops or infiltrating *my* house, I see fit to eliminate them. Or should I let the squirrels do whatever they want and go back to the store-bought lifestyle that is pushing our world closer to the brink every day?

I agree that mankind has created the situation, but you are being naive if you think leaving the cute little squirrels alone will solve the problem. The "land pyramid" is broken and we aren't going to fix it by just doing what you advise and stepping back. You invite Lisa to "Please read up on how ecosystems and ecology function." Perhaps if the squirrel-lovers "read up" and stop feeding the furry tree-rats, there would be less population pressure and they wouldn't be running all over? Or maybe I should stop trapping the squirrels and just re-introduce a few predatory species to keep them in check? Maybe a few foxes, a wolf or two, and a bobcat would be more to your liking? Of course the elementary school kids that walk through my neighborhood might not fit into that scheme too well. But that's how ecosystems work, right?

Life is not black and white. It is infinite shades of grey and everyone has to make their choices. I do not enjoy killing the squirrels in my yard, but it is a task I undertake with a stern resolve. That resolve is born from the knowledge that they innocently chewed the insulation from the wires in my attic and could have burned my house to the ground with my family inside it if I had not stopped them. I will not give them the chance to do so again. I ask the Lord for forgiveness each time I kill one of those tree rats and I will accept His judgment. But your ill-informed and borderline abusive comments will not stand, sir.

spazboy: I applaud--thunderously--your efforts to live in communion with the land. If only we could all behave as responsibly as you do. I don't feed the squirrels in my yard. I used to, but then I did quite a bit of research on the way suburban habitats function and realized that I was causing more harm than not. I realize that life is not black and white. But there are more humane ways to control infestation by squirrels. Block off entrance to the attic, for example. Find a creative way to protect your gardens. On another note: I am neither "ill-informed" nor "borderline abusive." I am extremely concerned about the ill treatment of the land by people who are concerned more about their own selfish desires than they are in learning to live with other members of the ecological community. It takes more work--as you, perhaps more than most people, know--but it is absolutely essential if we want to leave a livable world to our children.

Also? I am not a "sir." :)

Like I said, my squirrels eat just about anything. I don't think it's a novel idea to supply something for the wildlife, away from your produce, that they would prefer and you don't want. They most definitely have preferences. That could be done in conjunction with making it harder to get to the fruit, or other deterrents.

Like I said, I don't know why my squirrels are so easy to get along with or redirect. When I see them toss something to the ground, they don't like it. If they did, they'd finish at some point.

I'm glad some of you actually have a good and caring attitude and try other methods. I didn't come here for a nasty fight, I just saw there was a fruit tree forum and was horrified to see a thread like this.

That was my $.02, since I adore my squirrels -- and I'm out.

Enjoy spraying your trees. Whatever floats your boat.

Ever see a red-tailed hawk eat a squirrel? Or a fox? Or a coyote? Or any one of the natural predators that hunt squirrels? Nature works out things in a wonderful way if left alone, but man has removed most of the predator species without thought to what happens when the prey species are left to run wild.

My parents own over 5 acres in upstate NY. On an average day on their property I might see 3-4 squirrels. On my 1/2 acre in suburban Long Island, I will easily see double that, often with 4-5 being visible at the same time. And this is after more than 2 years of my trapping and killing them.

With no natural predators and an overabundance of food from bird feeders and little old ladies tossing out peanuts by the bagful, the only limiting factor on their numbers is the availability of nesting sites. Since there are only so many trees, the little buggers eat into houses, garages, cars, power company transformers, and any other place that they can fit. They cause millions of dollars in damages every year from power outages and electrical fires.

Squirrels are just rats with good P.R. Would anyone give a damn about them if they didn't have that furry tail?

I would like to hear from folks that make bon bon treats for squirrels. Also, has any one tried the motion sensor sprinklers. I saw this in a catalog and thought it might help on a lone backyard tree.

The squirrel-loving animal rights people are just horribly naive. Well-meaning, but not living in the real world.

How was I not looking after my property when the red squirrel trashed my Chevy in the span of 36 hours? Or, when it chose to chew through my garage? Should I wrap my vehicles in chicken wire cages every time I park them? How about my garage, wrap it in a protective cage?

This whole thread has influenced me a lot. No more Mr. Nice Guy -- time to start drowning them, rather than dumping them out at some nature preserve. After all, with the vast rise in fuel prices, nitrogen prices must be going to take a big jump. Any little bit of fertilizer I can harvest would be a good thing. I think it's time to turn the tables and start burying dead squirrels under the fruit and nut trees.

I do think however, that the pro-squirrel posters are misguided, probably through lack of experience, in their belief that squirrels can be talked to and persuaded to feast elsewhere. The simple fact is, if I could strike a deal with squirrels whereby they got to eat 50-60% of my fruit, and I was allowed to keep the remaining 40%, I would sign in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, they insist on eating every single last peach and nectarine in my garden, and they have done so for the last 4 years.

I leave some of the fallen peaches and nectarines on my garage roof where they pass en-route to my garden and they ignore those as they seem to enjoy ripping new fruit each day from the tree, and if they can break a few branches in the bargain, so much the better. I have reluctantly come o the conclusion that shooting them is the only solution, as traps, bird netting and various scents such as coyote urine have proved totally useless.

Im not sure why some postes seem to belive that squirrels were at my address before I was. And even if they were, some species was there before the squirrels took it over. And some species before that one etc. I think that is a ridiculous argument.

I don't mind sharing some of my Butternuts with the local squirrels. I mind somewhat when they go around the tree cutting nuts long before they're ripe. I'll set up a squirrel pole when they clear the tree out again because that means there is a population problem.
I do mind when instead of running they sit on a branch and challenge me when I walk out in my front yard. I'm not paying for rabies shots because someone trained a squirrel to have no fear of humans, that squirrel will get retrained with a pellet.

You are right and killing them one at a time does little to decrease their populations. But it does give them fear of man so instead of seeing us as a free meal they hide just like when an owl or hawk flies through the woods. You won't see squirrels in the woods with even one owl around. Yet you are seeing an over-population in a town full of predators.
That is our place in the pyramid.

Squirrelheaven,
"I don't know how anyone can kill." = high horse.
It takes life to sustain life.
Even if you are a vegan who grows everything you eat you are killing plants and using their life to sustain yours. If you buy your vegetables you are paying others to kill animals to keep them from eating the vegetables they grow for you.

We all await your great ideas on how we can protect our orchards from squirrels without killing them.

Scott

It sounds like you shouldn't be growing this stuff in your back yards. It's a food source. And too close to people habitats if it's causing that many problems. I guess there are enough trees and natural resources for my creatures to eat and live peacably, as they don't seem to be any trouble at all.

So now that that has been explained, this thread can be limited to a debate whether it is fair game to kill squirrels that ravage out fruit/vegatables.

personally, i think its ridiculous to suggest that we should not grow fruit because we attract squirrels. We have just as much right as any other animal to protect our territory.
`

If I stop growing produce in my back yard, because, God forbid, some woodchuck or squirrel might have to get trapped and moved out to a park, or worse yet, trapped and drowned, it just means some commercial grower in California or elsewhere has to grow a bit more, to feed me and my family. And, I suspect, in the big scheme of things, those people are doing more harm to the ecosystem and to wildlife than I am.

So, where do your propose our food supply come from? Commercial agriculture is going to be less forgiving of pests and nuisance animals than are backyard growers. The big boys who do this for a living take no prisoners, and use the appropriate chemical or trap or whatever right away, end of problem, critter dead or relocated. Here in Michigan, a lot of farmers work with the DNR to get their deer herds thinned out enough to mitigate deer damage to their crops. A few years ago, the Metropark system in the Detroit area hired hunters and got special permission to cull the deer heards in the parks, because the deer were so overpopulated they were decimating many plant species. That had the animal rights people up in arms, but it sure helped the parks. Trillium and dozens of other species which were almost gone are now making a comeback. Many hundreds of deer were taken, and the meat was donated to a soup kitchen.

The logic in growing fruit, nuts, and other produce is that, as biological organisms, humans have to eat. Yes, we do share this planet with other creatures, but evolution and/or our Creator has graced or cursed, depending upon your perspective, our species with superior intellect and ability to manipulate the physical environment far in excess of any other species. In the process, we have created an out-of-balance ecosystem with too few predators and way too many prey animals. About three years ago, a pair of redtail hawks nested in the woods about 1/4 mile from my house, and I hardly saw a squirrel or bunny all that summer. I saw a great, exciting, extended hawk/squirrel chase one morning in my back yard, but alas, the squirrel did get away. THAT is how it is suppossed to work, but there are too many factors limiting the predators, which reproduce at a far lower rate than the prey species.

So, LL asked, "is it fair game to kill squirrels that ravish our fruit/vegetables."

ABSOLUTELY. I'm not growing this stuff for the squirrels and woodchucks. I welcome the help of the hawks, foxes, whatever predator can survive in my suburban area. I've tried the protective wire cages around trees, repellant sprays, etc., various non-lethal methods. As a rule, they just don't work. My trap and remove efforts this year have yielded much better results. For the first time in quite a few years, I still have oodles of filberts on my bushes in early August. Ordinarily, by now, the tree rats would have them all chewed to mulch on the ground. I might actually get a harvest of nuts this fall.

Organic smallhome,
You claim nobody has a problem in your neighborhood yet you originally claimed that your neighbor 3 doors down has to encase her whole garden with wire mesh. Obviously she has a problem.

"Violence" and "Rampage against the animals"? You do realize your extremism doesn't convince anyone but other extremists don't you?

Presumably wharf rats (Rattus rattus) wouldn't be expected in Illinois. These occur near salt water. Although they are primarily nocturnal, here, where there are plenty of mostly untended apple, pear and plum trees we even see rats going for fruit in broad daylight. Fairly recently, while in traffic I saw one up on top of an apple tree located above a busy street on an urban hillside. Nice sunny day, plenty of visibility.

You have a problem with wildlife because you maintain a food source outside, even if it's for your own eating pleasure.

As far as them getting into the house, yes, if my home, family, safety and well-being were threatened due to my keeping food in the backyard, I would stop. I also probably wouldn't go through all the pain, expense, and frustration being described in this thread just to maintain a fruit tree that they enjoy so much and, so, be in a constant battle with Mother Nature. It makes no sense to plant edibles in the backyard, near your home, and then expect no wildlife to show up for nature's bounty. I find it hard to believe that no one else gets around these problems without a shotgun. There's a ton of info and resources out there on the net for those who are interested.

Don't have the original site, but there are lots of hits on "fruit trees rats." Apparently they do climb trees, jump from roofs, etc. I saw nothing about wharfs.

Scott

Having survived fighting a few out of the soffits and roof of my house was enough to encourage me to start looking for more lethal means of dealing with the varmints. I live on .13 of an acre and I've walked out my back door to 15 or more squirrels and half a dozen bunnies on more than one occasion. (but no more!) The bunnies and I have come to a reasonable agreement, I let them have lettuce, parsley and other plants I've sown in the corners for them to enjoy. Areas where the bunnies must stay out of are blocked well enough that they don't stray there more than once. (A good scare seems to convince them that there are better places to be).

I've spoken to all of my nearby neighbors and they are inviting me to use their yards as a target range should a squirrel use their yard to escape. (btw...just to show I am not unfairly just anti-squirrel, I will gladly dispatch any possum or raccoon I catch doing grevious harm to one of the plants I've spent time and money to help grow).

As an alternative, would you prefer I rip out every stem of anything green in my yard and let the buggers starve? (Or am I now required to continue producing fruit/food for the over-population of squirrels

~Chills

squirrelheaven,
It's only being a hypocrite when you make statements such as, "I don't know how anyone can kill."
You're killing, you're just hiring it done rather than getting your hands dirty.

Did it ever cross your mind that you get a lot of hits on "trees rats" because people call squirrels "tree rats"???

Someone was blaming bird feeders. Well, I don't think growing edibles is any different. You're putting a food source at your door. Build it and they will come.

I was only saying that I could not hunt and kill with my own bare hands and intent, and don't know how anyone could buy a shotgun and go out back and shoot the wildlife. Certainly not for some fruit. But, animals have always been a part of my daily enjoyment. I enjoy watching them and look into their faces. I watch them (birds and squirrels) raise the youngsters. I've always lived with animals in the home. I don't know how people in the food production business do it, either. Or how they raise animals for slaughter. I do realize it's a fact of our society and don't know how to get around it. It's very difficult. There's not a perfect solution for anything. It's totally out of my realm or control to understand or change the world. I do what I can and minimize.

No, I don't know how anyone could pick up a gun or a trap or a poison and do that.

Nobody's going to change anybody else here. It's a stupid dicussion. I am just shocked that squirrels get such a rap and that some neighborhoods are actually toting shotguns around their backyard gardens. Hopefully no one else will get hurt or poisoned in the process.

Good day.

As for your butternut and apple: How much butternut and how many apples can you eat? The OP posted a photo of her nectarine tree a week before the squirrels got to it. Seems to me that she had plenty of opportunity to collect nectarines.

Anyway, that's it for me. Thanks for the chat. :)

((((squirrelheaven))))

You should give growing fruit a try and then maybe you'd understand why people do it and why they aren't happy when something (animals OR human) clears them out before the fruit is ripe.

I don't eat that many butternuts, a grocery sack or two is plenty. That's why as long as they don't clear the tree I don't have a problem with the squirrels having some as long as they're eating and not cutting the nuts in June and July. If they let them get ripe there's enough for both of us.
So far my only problem with squirrels (other than the one that chewed a huge hole in my house once) is them losing their fear of humans and getting territorial over my tree (I have the squirrel lovers to thank for that).

Apples are a different story. I can use as many as I can get. I'm planning on putting in 3 more trees this fall for a total of 6 trees.
If that averages out to be 6 bushels I can use them. I think an apple a day comes out to be around 4.5 bushels.
Seems you'd rather me feed the squirrels and snack on Doritos.

Anyway, good luck with your squirrels, lycheeluva. You know, if you play your cards right, nectarines might not be the only food your trees provide, if you catch my drift ;-)

What the hell is WRONG with you people???

I'm out of here. And, as I'm sure you'll be happy to know, for good.

You are correct in saying that the OP will not starve without the fruit, and although I do not know lycheeluva's buying habits, I would make the assumption that if lycheeluva's own tree does not produce, than lycheeluva will simply buy the fruit. However, growing fruit gives one control control over how the squirrels are handled, which likely means the the cruelty will be reduced, since I doubt lycheeluva will simply kill them in the way that makes the most financial sense regardless of cruelty, as could be the case with growers of commercial fruit. Either way, squirrels will be harmed, the only question is the degree of suffering, but it is likely that if lycheeluva is the one to take care of the squirrels, their fate will be a more humane one.

I fail to see any flaws in my logic. I would be grateful if you could point out any specific errors.

Being a teacher means nothing. I was taught that ice forms on the bottom of a lake and floats to the top. I know someone else who flunked a report because peccaries are extinct. Of course neither is true and both bad eco-sciences were taught by teachers.
brandon7 is convinced he has moved a whole zone warmer although the rest of the world is having spring frost dates moving later. He is being taught that bad science by someone.

If you knew what it actually took to keep the natural balance, organic smallhome, you would know that killing a few rodents when they encroach on your territory IS the natural balance.
You would also know that lycheeluva staking out her tree as her territory and defending it with lethal means is also very natural and goes on within the squirrels' world.

The squirrels lycheeluva was complaining about didn't eat "some" of the fruits, they destroyed EVERY fruit and they have done so for 4 years. Your ability to ignore critical points like that is why your teaching is a scary thought rather than proof of being some kind of expert.
If your extremist view was spread to all growers across the US the result would be to starve humans.
So I'd ask what the hell is wrong with you that you hate humans so much while at the same time you obviously think it's OK to keep yourself alive.

There are thousand of posts on gardening forums about how to get rid of voles, mice, rats, hornworms, cabbage loopers, squash borers, etc. Where is all of this moral outrage on these posts?

It seems curious to me that no one sticks up for the ugly creatures. Perhaps that indicates that the bambi-huggers are a wee bit hypocritical themselves. After all, if you profess that animal life is just as important as human life, shouldn't it bother you that our society kills so many small and ugly pests?

Vole flame wars, anyone? Come on, I kill them all the time. I hope they suffer in the process. How twisted am I? ROTFL.

Oh well, I really can't devote any more time to this thread right now, got a whole big garden full of stuff to harvest. Perhaps I'll set a trap in honor of the bambi-huggers while I'm out there, as well, and save one more Asian pear for myself, immoral greedy human vermin that I am.

Oops, my bad!

Dennis
SE Michigan

Posted by denninmi 6A (My Page) on Mon, Aug 4, 08 at 7:31

The attitude which I seem on these forums which I consider amusing is that, when someone posts about squirrels or some similiar cute, fluffy little creature being from Disney's central casting potentially getting blasted, the animal rights people come out in force to protest.
There are thousand of posts on gardening forums about how to get rid of voles, mice, rats, hornworms, cabbage loopers, squash borers, etc. Where is all of this moral outrage on these posts?

It seems curious to me that no one sticks up for the ugly creatures. Perhaps that indicates that the bambi-huggers are a wee bit hypocritical themselves. After all, if you profess that animal life is just as important as human life, shouldn't it bother you that our society kills so many small and ugly pests?

Vole flame wars, anyone? Come on, I kill them all the time. I hope they suffer in the process. How twisted am I? ROTFL.

Oh well, I really can't devote any more time to this thread right now, got a whole big garden full of stuff to harvest. Perhaps I'll set a trap in honor of the bambi-huggers while I'm out there, as well, and save one more Asian pear for myself, immoral greedy human vermin that I am.

Oops, my bad!

Dennis
SE Michigan

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Yes, your observation is correct. I guess it is part of human nature Dennis.

My wife and I discussed this cuteness aspect a while back. We don't raise animals, but gave rabbits and chickens some thought if the food shortages get bad enough down the road due to peak oil. We decided we could kill chickens by the killing cone method, but breaking the neck of rabbits didn't feel right. They were 'too cute'.. to kill.

Now, if we were starving, then the cuteness must be put on back burner I guess. I have been on many forums on related topics and have generally found it tough for people not used to the realities of farm life to kill animals without feeling some pain.

And as far as voles? I hope none attack and kill my 26 fruit trees I planted this year. I've kept the mulch away from the trunk. Don't know if we should ever get much happiness in killing animals though...even voles. Although I do take satisfaction in killing some biting bugs that keep pestering me and usually outrun me squishing them.

I actually had a friend way back who would not even kill a mosquito or an ant. (I watched her carefully remove mosquitoes from herself on a regular basis). When she said "I don’t see how anyone could kill", when it came to mosquitoes, I thought it was ridiculous, but respected it because for her, there was no line in the sand. It was an absolute. And with us, we agreed to simply disagree. If you are such a person would even kill the mosquito, then my post holds no water and I retract with an apology for suggesting it.

When you say "Certainly not for some fruit", you should realize that to people up here, it’s not "just some fruit", it’s their passion. It’s their time, money, food source, and very hard work which are being trashed and wasted. Despite what you might think, I think many of the people on this forum are very environmentally aware and do care about the balances in nature. (I would think very much more so than the average person on the street) But, after spending lots of money on squirrel solutions which don’t work, and seeing their passion destroyed, some are driven to humanly slightly reduce the overpopulation of pests. For myself, and I believe for the vast majority of the other posters here, we all wish there was another practical way.

For me, my problem wasn’t the squirrels, but rather the chipmunks eating all of my crops. Again, I’d be willing to share… truly I would. But, for example, of the 300 strawberries I would have got, only 5 were nibble free, and even those I had to pick in a not-fully-ripened state. I thought about it for a long time and eventually did what need to be done. I did not enjoy it and I take what I did seriously. (Next year, you’ll be happy to know, that I’m considering building a big, ugly, inconvenient hardware cloth cage to grow some of my fruit in, but even that crazy solution won’t work for much of what I grow.)
It doesn’t sound like we have any wishy-washy opinions here, so I don’t think anyone’s opinion is going to be changed. squirrelheaven, organic_smallhome – You are starting from a very high opinion… and when it comes to killing, I agree, it is a very good place to start from. But, until you’ve been pushed to where others on this board have been pushed, you probably won’t understand why we don’t consider it quite so black and white.

Best regards,
-Glenn

Lycheeluva - so sorry you lost all your nectarines. I feel for you!

For those of you killing squirrels. . . . . they're greasy but on the charcoal grill most of that drips off. Check out some dizzy pig bbq rubs too if you do a lot over fire.

cheers,
end trans.

It turns out, I may have difficulty buying any type of gun within NYC. Will keep everyone posted.

By the way, I think the following points sum up the feelings and experience of the majority of posters here.

1. We do not like to cause any living thing unnecessary pain.

2. We do not like to kill any living thing (often plant life included)

3. We make significant effort to try and deal with pests in manners that avoid killing and hurting them.

4. These efforts are largely futile.

5. Squirrels and other pests do not just destroy some of our fruits/veg- they destroy at least 80%+ and often destroy every last piece of fruit or vegatation that they enjoy, even if they only actually eat about 30% of this.

6. Killing squirrels on our property in as humane a manner as possible, is unquestionably morally justifiable.

Thanks again for everyones' posts. Even those who disagree. They are completely entitled to voice their opinions, even if they are completely wrong!

All game except for Bambi burger dries out too much on the grill for my tastes.

If they are eating your fruit, have at them. Apples and pork go well together. I bet it would be good with squirrel or rabbit also.

Studies have shown that "animal abusers are five times more likely to commit violent crimes against people and four times more likely to commit property crimes than are individuals without a history of animal abuse." Psychologists and even the FBI have long recognized that serial killers, child abusers, and those that commit domestic violence are much more likely to be those that intentionally and unnecessarily hurt animals. Animal cruelty is "a clear indicator of psychological issues that can and often DO lead to more violent human crimes."

Let me make it clear that taking reasonable steps (this may even include the death of animals in some situation) to deal with animal problems is not abuse, however needlessly making the animals suffer and enjoying it (like more than one respondent to this thread claims to do on a regular basis) definitely is.

Many (not all) respondents to this thread have needlessly and obviously intentionally twisted the words of others to try to prove their own otherwise indefensible arguments. I think some (not all) of the responses to Organic_smallhome and Squirrelheaven have either been blinded to what these posters have said by their own viewpoints or have intentionally twisted their words and scapegoated them in an attempt to advance their own deluded viewpoint.

Others have advanced and/or emphasized unrelated issues (like killing animals for food) to distract from the real issue. Squirrelheaven brought up killing animals for food to make the point that he/she didn't enjoy participating in animal's deaths. He/she never claimed that animals should never be killed or that everyone should be a vegetarian. In response, some of the respondents used this issue and others as a smokescreen to draw attention away from the real issue.

Towards the end (so far) of this thread, some were noting that they were in the "majority" with their opinions. I don't see a majority. There seem to be at least four viewpoints. The most extreme viewpoint was that of those who regularly participate in and enjoy killing animals and making them suffer. According to most all mental health professions, these people are likely in need of some type of help. A second viewpoint was that problems with animals can often be solved by eliminating the animal involved, and the animal's suffering was secondary to their own needs or wants. A third viewpoint, and the one I share, is that animals suffering should be one of the (not the only) primary issues taken into consideration when dealing with animal problems. A forth viewpoint was one that viewed animal suffering from a more sentimental viewpoint. I think most people would agree that none of the last three viewpoints were intrinsically wrong, but the first viewpoint (shared by at least three respondents) has been shown in mental health studies to be problematic.

--------------------------

As a side issue to this conversation, Myk1 babbled on about how I was "convinced (I have) moved a whole zone warmer although the rest of the world is having spring frost dates moving later". I have no idea what this is about, but according to the federal government (The National Weather Bureau), the average yearly low in the Knoxville area has increased by about 12 degrees F (about a zone and a half) over the past couple of decades. This is an easily verified fact not a matter of opinion. As anyone familiar with the subject knows, the majority of the US has increased its actual hardiness zone rating. The National Arborday Foundation and many other groups have more on this for anyone interested. I can't tell if Myk1 is just extremely uneducated on this issue, or is trying to make a point that is, as yet, unclear. Surely Myk1 doesn't think the National Weather Bureau has been systematically recording false readings for years as part of some giant conspiracy.

I have always been very clear on the "global warming" issue and try to stick exclusively to facts about the subject. There are those (on both sides of the argument) that refuse to accept unquestionably proven facts. Maybe Myk1 is one of those, I don't know. Myk1, if you have a personal issue about something I have said, you are welcome to write me directly so that your ramblings will not distract from the conversations of others. If you have a point on this subject, I'd advise you to go back and check what you think I may have said. I think you will find my positions based very solidly on well established and verifiable fact. I leave the supposition and guessing to others, and would advise you to do the same.

Your cooked stat of AVERAGE increased by 12°F is pretty meaningless. Plants that require freeze don't care whether they're at 10°F or 22°F for their required freeze hours, all they care about is that they are below freezing. If you had moved from 200 hours of freeze to 100 hours of freeze that would mean something.
Plants that don't want to get below 0°F don't care what the average temperature is. If one day of sub-0 temperatures is what threw the average down a few degrees those plants will still be dead if you didn't protect them. If your extreme temperature went up or down that would mean something.
If your fall or spring frost date had moved earlier or later respectively that would mean something (plants would generally enjoy the dates moving to give you a longer growing season it's the fewer days that matter).

The fact is that a large part of the US has had it's extreme spring frost date moved later with the hard freeze that happened recently, about a week later for me. FL has been getting more and more frosts my whole life, so many that it's not even news worthy any more.

Personally I don't know of any "unquestionably proven" facts on either side of global warming. I guess you have just let us know exactly where you stand and that's on the side of claiming scientific hypothesis and theories are scientific laws, not because it's proven but because you want it to be true.
Surely you don't think the National Weather Bureau is in on a conspiracy and lying to say you are zone 6 when you are actually zone 7 to get you and every farmer in the US to plant the wrong plants.

The only issues I had with something you said was to use your claim of moving down a zone as an example of bad science. And your threat of calling the law on someone killing a squirrel.

But now I have an issue about you making an ad hominem attack about how I "babbled on" when the fact of the matter is you warranted a whole 32 words comprised in 2 whole sentences, one of those words being your name. And your attack on the majority of posters here equating them to child abusers.
I think the fact that squirrelheaven, organic smallhome and you have launched into personal attacks against people who say it's OK to kill rodents lets everyone see the truth.
Studies have also shown that people like Hitler preferred animals to humans.

never killed a squirrel but I kill snails regularly. maybe I need to see a doctor to find out if I am normal?

And, for the record, I do kill voles all the time, by putting out a whole lot of poison bait blocks. I have to, my neighborhood has been overrun with them for quite a few years, ever since the adjacent vacant acreage was developed and they were chased out when it was buldozed down to the subsoil. These too have caused me countless damage, from chewed insulation in my garage to many ruined plants. Whether they suffer or not, I can't say. They probably do. What am I supossed to do, let them have the run of the place, and happily pour the mouse do-do out of the glasses in my kitchen cupboards before pouring my morning orange juice? I think not. I would prefer that they live elsewhere, then I wouldn't have to kill them, no smell them when they die in some nook or cranny where I can't find them right away. But, they and I don't seem to be able to come to an understanding about this matter.

As far as my general attitude towards animals and animal rights, well, I certainly support humane treatment of animals, but I'm not some zealot who thinks stepping on an ant should be a capital offense. As far as my personal experiences with animals goes, other than having many pets over the years, I also was a wildlife rehabilitator for a number of years, which was an interesting and rewarding experience. I only worked with birds, though, no mammals. I saved my fair share of them and released them back into the wilderness when possible. Others didn't make it, because they were too injured or ill, and I many times I cried over them when they died.

I don't really know why I should care what some unknown person in cyberspace thinks of me, good or bad, but I feel you should know that you're making assumptions about me and my psychological makeup without any knowledge of me at all, nor of my experiences or circumstances. I guess I'll just leave it by saying that I don't think I was being an animal abuser when I spent $14,000 on chemotherapy for my dog when he developed cancer. Yes, a lot of money, but it bought us three more precious years together.

Oh, as far as my lengthy criminal record goes, well, alas, you got me on that one, I did once get a ticket for going 32 MPH in a 25 zone. Oh, the shame of it all! I'm sure the FBI must keep my name on file since I'm so dangerous.

Lighten up, people! Geesh.

As I said above, it doesn't appear to me that you are in a "majority". There are multiple viewpoints. Which three people are you claiming are in the minority and what common viewpoint do you see them having that goes against everyone else?

When you write "plants that require freeze don't care whether they're at 10°F or 22°F", are you kidding me? Where were you in middle school biology? Are you telling me that biologist all over the world that use hardiness zone ratings are all wrong? Should I throw out Dirr's book on trees that list their hardiness zones? The number of freeze days for most of the country is decreasing with the warming trends seen over the past few decades. I don't know about Florida, but it would be nice to have the plants that grow in other parts of the country make it as well. When you said "personally I don't know of any "unquestionably proven" facts on either side of global warming" that said it all. It's sad to see people who don't care enough about what's going on to find out. Or maybe this is some of that morbid humor Dennis mentioned. If you believe any of what you are saying about this temperature subject, you are probably too out of touch with things to even learn from any further discussion. Speaking of poor education!

You also have a number of other facts wrong. I never "threat(en) of calling the law on someone killing a squirrel." I stated that I would call the law on someone using a pellet gun to maim a squirrel. I also didn't "attack ... the majority of posters." I focused on only a few (including you) that just seemed to have it all wrong. Most of the posts here were from reasonable people that seemed to care to some degree about how their actions affected the environment and other living beings. Only a few seemed to be psychotic nuts. When you said "I think the fact that ... you have launched into personal attacks against people who say it's OK to kill rodents lets everyone see the truth", it becomes obvious that you don't even have the first clue as to what I said. Man, you should really work on getting your facts strait. A mistake here or there is understandable, but your confusion is just plain ridiculous. Please don't try to interpret what I've said without reading and trying to understand what I write first.
---------------------------
phase0001 wrote "I don't think you can equate those who eliminate the pests and animal abusers". I totally agree with that, and that was my point in my third paragraph above. It's the people that needlessly make the animals suffer and enjoying it that are animal abusers. I think most people here realize that.
---------------------------
Dennis, maybe your right and I just don't "recognize sarcasm and good old fashioned morbid humor when (I) read it." I can only go by what I read, and unless someone gives some clue that they are kidding how is any reader to know?

Just because you spent $14,000 on chemotherapy for your dog doesn't mean you don't abuse animals. It means you must like your dog and have compassion for him/her, but that's about it. Even serial killers have been known to show kindness towards others. I'm not trying to compare you to a serial killer, but just want to make the point that one act of kindness doesn't make a person virtuous.

For what it's worth, maybe you should consider that, if you are just kidding around, maybe it's possible that I'm not the only one that doesn't get it.

You're telling me my butternut didn't mind getting the hard freeze 5 days after our previous extreme frost date, it only cares about the average through the winter? It pulled through but I'll be sure to let the people know who lost trees because of that freeze that an internet genius says they're wrong.
You're telling me that my cherries don't produce when a warm week in January throws the average low off but they still get their hours of freeze in? I guess they missed middle school biology too. Or maybe we just had it before it became politically motivated with extremists trying to influence young minds.

It should be obvious to anyone that -100° and 100° average to 0°, the same as -1° and 1° do. "Average" should be a big flag to anyone that stats are being manufactured.

And just because I don't buy into your "unquestionably proven facts" doesn't mean I'm not aware. I'm aware of a lot of things that would qualify as hypothesis and a few that would qualify as theories on both sides but very little that would qualify as laws.
I do see both sides having extremists who try to jump the gun and claim "unquestionably proven facts".

You did make the threat, it's in your first reply. You did make the attack of connecting killing rodent pests to animal abuse to child abuse (an attack right out of the animal rights activist playbook I might add), it was in your last post.
You started your attacks with your second reply.
I find that when writing things on the internet it's easier not to say them instead of claiming I didn't say them after I entered them into a few thousand harddrives.

Lycheeluva...kill the damn things and be done with it. You tried to play nice and got screwed for it. Either get a trap that kills, or do the live trap then drown them. It's fast and more humane than poison. A pellet gun in a neighborhood such as yours is only going to break windows. And don't forget the famous line from A Christmas Story..."You'll shoot your eye out, kid!". And once you kill one, decapitate it, then put it's head on a pike to serve as warning to all others! Go medieval on their ass.

Surely you must be familiar with hardiness zones! I thought almost everyone on Gardenweb was. If not, you can search the internet and see what they are all about. The USDA has a good explanation on their site. A couple of examples of a plant that happened to make it through a tough time doesn't mean that the science should be thrown out. In fact, hardiness zones are by far the most universally accepted way to rate whether a plant is likely to survive in a certain location.

In your misstatements of what I said, you claim that I "threat(ened) of calling the law on someone killing a squirrel." In the brief statement you refer to, I said, "the least you could do is shoot to kill and not just maim." It's pretty obvious that you either misread my statement or just want to twist it to prove your incorrect view.

You seem to think that ignoring facts, that the rest of the world has accepted, makes you correct. This simply isn't the case. You claim that when I make the statement that my effective hardiness zone has changed that I am incorrect. But you simply attack the science of what hardiness zones are all about to prove your point. The term "hardiness zone" has a set meaning, and even, in the unlikely event that you could discredit its validity, the definition doesn't change. It is unquestionable fact that my (and the majority of the country's) effective hardiness zone has indeed changed. Your argument is akin to me saying that your math of averaging -100 and 100 is not correct. What if I made the claim that the average was 56.3? Would that make sense? No more than your arguments against my statement that effective hardiness zones were shifting over almost the entire country.

d
a v
e

They say gloabl warming is to blame for zone change?

Actually humanity faces much bigger problems than climate control. The massive problem facing the world in the not so distant future will be that of peak oil as we are rapidly running out of ALL fossil fuels as well as uranium, food and water.

And in the long run, global warming may be good for us. You see, we wont have much fuel to heat our homes, so at least we wont freeze to death as much in a warmer climate.

Have you ever thought about how much your homes are dependent on natural gas for cooking, heating and hot water? Well, we will run out of natural gas in the next few decades, just after have we depleted our crude supplies.

http://www.amazon.com/High-Noon-Natural-Gas-Energy/dp/1931498539

I'm sorry for the polar bears and the penguins, but this is how mankind operates by living outside of natures intended means. All our actions have consequences, and many of our actions produce consequences that end up destroying peace. They destroy our peace as well as the inner peace of others.

Why don't we do anything about global warming...because we can't.

To do anything substantive would cause a financial and population backlash of unimaginable proportions.

And what we could do, even with drastic measures, would not cure global warming but only slow things down.

In addition, there is no one global entity to control all the green house gas emitters. China and India (CHINDIA) plan on adding more dirty coal burning electric plants to feed their burgeoning economies.

Yes, we have Kyoto, but...the largest polluters of green house gasses have exempted themselves from it.

"As of June 2007, a total of 172 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries). Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries, like CHINDIA, which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

We can't start wars over green house gas like we do oil...even then we would have to go to war right here at home before we point fingers at other countries.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3143798.stm

As far as foreign wars, many of these newly rich nations seem to be in a war of sorts to see who can build the biggest and the tallest. Well, the bigger the building is the more energy it takes to power it and the more green house gas is given off to pay for the ego behind the monstrosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_buildings_and_structures_in_the_world#Tallest_buildings

Thoreau once said when people invited him to dinner they 'put their pride' in how fancy and expensive a meal they could make. Whereas he put his pride in how simple and inexpensive a meal he could make.

Where do we put our pride?

We surely don't put it in living within our means and in balance with nature.

In the US, 93.2% of our electric comes from non renewable, greenhouse gas producing methods.

If we are looking to hydroelectric and renewable sources, 4.46% of our electric comes from hydroelectric and 2.34% comes from renewable energy production.

Out of this 2.34% of renewable sources, an undisclosed portion still contributes to global warming despite its prestige of being a 'renewable energy source' as it involves the burning of wood, black liquor, wood waste, municipal solid waste, landfill gas, sludge waste, tires, agriculture byproducts and biomass.

Only a fraction of the 2.34% of renewable electric energy that is produced comes from geothermal, solar thermal, photovoltaic energy, and wind.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html

Lets say we decided to turn off the coal fired plants for 25% of a 24 hour day to save some fossil fuel.

Saving 25% seems to be a modest proposal.

So they shut the coal fired plants down for 6 hours during peak daytime operation.

And lets say we don't care that all the frozen food in the markets will thaw out and the refrigerated foods will spoil.

And lets say the workforce will sacrifice their jobs for the 6 hours every day while the electric is shut off.

And we put up with the gridlock and accidents from not having traffic lights and the doctors and hospitals all shut down.

And people just hold their noses over the backed up sewage that cannot be processed when the electric is off.

The real problem with trying to implement even a modest 25% fossil fuel saving plan is this - it just can't be done.

Coal fired plants are not of the nature to be turned off and turned on with the flip of a switch.

If a coal fired plant was turned off and completely cooled down it would take many days to bring it back online. If a coal powered plant was shut down even for 6 hours, it would take between 12 hours to bring it back to operational capacity.

In addition, when the plant is started back up, all the fossil fuel that is consumed in the startup does not make electric, it just goes to bring things back up to speed. And during startup, the plant operates at lower temperature and produces more pollution at those lower temperatures. And if that is not enough, startups of that magnitude send out power surges that destroy transformers and cause grid problems.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel_power_plant

Well, if saving 25% from the coal plants does not seem feasible, what about going to the American public?

Can we cut back on GNP by 25%?

Cut back on utility use at home by 25%

Cut back on driving by 25%?

Cut back on consumption whether it be food or hard goods by 25%?

Cut back on interstate trucking by 25%?

And cut back in all related areas that use energy by 25%?

ABSOLUTELY NOT!

The 'public' gets their underpants in a bind when the GNP declines at all...even when it is still in the positive numbers.

They start a panic in the stock market when the GNP is +1%, so how can it survive a -25% GNP drop?.

And as for cutting back on our demands...well it goes against the American dream.

And even if America decided to cut back 25%, that is only a drop in the bucket, as the rest of the world is ever increasing their demands on the environment and would soon make up for such a small decrease in greenhouse gas and fossil fuel depletion.

Are you starting to see the folly of thinking mankind can stop global warming, when mankind is built on such a ludicrous foundation?

There is no 'simple or easy answer' to this issue nor is there even a 'not so simple and hard answer' to our dilemma.

The world is in a death spiral. It is just how we have built our world over the years.

It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But seven billion people can't burn the trees!

The World Coal Institute estimates world energy reserves as follows:

"At current production levels coal will be available for at least the next 155 years compared to 41 years for oil and 65 years for gas." (See footnote #1)

http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=21

Even though this was written a few years ago and it is based on 'current production and consumption' it gives the same haunting message to the generations to come.

We may not see the end of our free flowing energy as we know it - but some of our descendants will in the not so distant future. This is the legacy they will inherit from us.

Mankind is just a little 'too smart' for his environment and learned to live beyond natures intended means. But mankind does not seem 'smart enough' to fix the mess that it has created.

Yes, mankind has done great things over their reign on earth, but we must always remember nature does not bow to us..in the end we all bow to nature.

Our population has grown to levels where it has passed the point of no return for supporting a sustainable human population as we know it today.

And leading the pack of over consumers is the USA.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption

Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way.

And even if we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take the hit? America is built on borrowed money, spending and consumerism.

And what does all that consumerism lead to?

It leads to the mess we are in now and the bigger mess the world will be in once CHINDIA picks up momentum to copycat the envious lifestyle that they have held in high esteem as the 'American Dream'

The worlds population is out of control.

The problem is not with the earth not having enough land for all its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all the needs the people crave.

Our planet is overpopulated in terms of what the planet can sustainably support. The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are depleted.

While I cannot deny the wisdom of promoting life as many religions profess and personal freedom the USA is built on, sometime we must accept the lesser of two evils if promoting life turns into being more destructive to life than 'not promoting' it.

It then becomes a decision whether to choose between the 'greater good for the whole' or the 'greater personal right for the individual'... and the whole be damned. (Whole meaning entire human population of our planet.)

For instance, on a farm if the plants are planted packed like sardines (or 'packed like sushi' as they say in Japan) the plants do not flourish.

In nature, trees that are overcrowded weed themselves out by nature's decree. But if man forced the trees to not weed out and forces crowding the trees may die from disease due to a forced and unsustainable growth plan.

So it goes with how our planet is evolving...a sad but exactly true statement.

Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal and World banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to fuel consumption and mask the real trend. Witness the recent cries for Federal bankers to lower interest rates...so the stock market can go up...fueled by spending of the consumer.

It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can't get away from.

Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it comes to durable goods.

Lets look at CHINDIA, two up and coming giants. Are they built on the compulsive spending habits of their people to foster a healthy economy? No, they are built on producing products and services and selling them to the USA and the world. Sure, their home consumption is a factor, but it is not the main factor as it is with the USA. The US GDP is based 70% on consumer spending.

The USA is built on consumer consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our retirement funds only go up. All this worldwide consumption contributes to more and more global warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW

You see, no other animal destroys its environment except mankind. We are the only ones that do not accept and live within our comfortable means. We not only debt with our finances we debt with our environment. What we are borrowing in terms of petroleum, coal and natural gas takes millions of years for nature to make. Yet we are using it all up in just a couple hundred years...we can never pay it back.

The scary thing is CHINDIA is just starting to bloom with their demands for fossil fuels We haven't seen anything yet with the meteoric rise of gas, energy and over consumption.

In China the per capita car ownership rate is 40 car owners per 1000 persons. In India it is much lower, running 8 cars per 1000 people. As these two giants evolve more of their population will want cars...in India, they are making a $2500 car as well.

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/05/percapita_car_o.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20394364/

But what can one say about the problem unless people just cut back reproducing?

Everyone has a desire to have some sex stimulation and through that stimulation comes more and more people. And everyone has a desire to keep warm when it is cold or to keep cool in the heat or move about the earth and wear clothes. And it is from all those desires that global warming fueled through the expenditure of fossil fuels takes place.

But the sad reality is even if people cut back having babies, we are only delaying the inevitable and that alone will not fix the problem. It can be compared to men stuck underwater in a crippled submarine. The more they move around, the quicker they run out of air and die. The less they move, the longer they can live...but the end result is the same.

Now maybe some genius will come up with a replacement for petroleum, natural gas and coal to meet all out needs. But it is unrealistic to think we can grow enough corn to fuel all the trucks, airlines, cargo ships, cars and other needs we humans have in addition run all the power plants and factories, heat and cool our homes.

From this list we can see that we are still massively depend on crude for our non sustainable lifestyle even if the world stopped burning fossil fuels this instant. There is no replacement for crude...crude is in the details of our life.

A partial list of products made from Petroleum. One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used for petrochemical needs to make things like:

Solvents Diesel Motor Oil Bearing Grease
Ink Floor Wax Ballpoint Pens Football Cleats
Upholstery Sweaters Boats Insecticides
Bicycle Tires Sports Car Bodies Nail Polish Fishing lures
Dresses Tires Golf Bags Perfumes
Cassettes Dishwasher Tool Boxes Shoe Polish
Motorcycle Helmet Caulking Petroleum Jelly Transparent Tape
CD Player Faucet Washers Antiseptics Clothesline
Curtains Food Preservatives Basketballs Soap
Vitamin Capsules Antihistamines Purses Shoes
Dashboards Cortisone Deodorant Footballs
Putty Dyes Panty Hose Refrigerant
Percolators Life Jackets Rubbing Alcohol Linings
Skis TV Cabinets Shag Rugs Electrician's Tape
Tool Racks Car Battery Cases Epoxy Paint
Mops Slacks Insect Repellent Oil Filters
Umbrellas Yarn Fertilizers Hair Coloring
Roofing Toilet Seats Fishing Rods Lipstick
Denture Adhesive Linoleum Ice Cube Trays Synthetic Rubber
Speakers Plastic Wood Electric Blankets Glycerin
Tennis Rackets Rubber Cement Fishing Boots Dice
Nylon Rope Candles Trash Bags House Paint
Water Pipes Hand Lotion Roller Skates Surf Boards
Shampoo Wheels Paint Rollers Shower Curtains
Guitar Strings Luggage Aspirin Safety Glasses
Antifreeze Football Helmets Awnings Eyeglasses
Clothes Toothbrushes Ice Chests Footballs
Combs CD's Paint Brushes Detergents
Vaporizers Balloons Sun Glasses Tents
Heart Valves Crayons Parachutes Telephones
Enamel Pillows Dishes Cameras
Anesthetics Artificial Turf Artificial limbs Bandages
Dentures Model Cars Folding Doors Hair Curlers
Cold cream Movie film Soft Contact lenses Drinking Cups
Fan Belts Car Enamel Shaving Cream Ammonia
Refrigerators Golf Balls Toothpaste Gasoline

(net source)

...and even nuclear power is dependent on the mining of uranium and has limits as to how long the supply will last.

http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4287300/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

What is in store for us in the not so distant future?

Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel. All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent. So long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a supply' of crude for it own needs.

Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of crude may not be so kind to keep on selling it to us and we need a 'local and continual' source somewhat within our borders. You see, jet fuel as well as gasoline deteriorates and cannot be stored indefinitely. So we must always be producing some of it to replace the stale stuff to supply the military. But, that's why we elect politicians to deal with these troubles

As our world changes and our drug supply dries up, things will only get worse. And the bigger the city - the bigger the hellhole it will become. And this time RIGHT NOW is the defining moment as to whether most of our population will die off or not in the crisis that awaits us in the not so distant future.

When it comes to the future, I see people living in miniature houses (the lucky ones that survive that is, after all most of the population died off long ago from starvation, freezing to death or from the riots) with roofs shingled completely with solar material.

They drive up to their house on an electric scooter that is recharged from their solar roof. If they are higher up the totem pole they may have a solar golf cart. But in either case, luck must still be on their side for without the sun shinning to charge it, their transportation sits idle. (Not much lead left to build big batteries...China gobbled it all up, so we have to make due with very small storage cells.)

They work for the government and in exchange the government feeds and clothes them from their warehouses. You see, we have become a sort of 'Communist Democracy' for without that bold leap and a desire 'to put our country first' Russia or China would have stepped in to acquire some new real estate.

The warehouses are fed from government owned coal fired steam locomotives. Diesel dried up long ago, so it was either wood or coal to fuel the trains. It did not take our government long to realize this. the electric plants only had to shut down sporadically for 8 months so until they could build the first of a large fleet of steam locomotives.

This was a 'slight' government oversight. They never figured that the coal fired power plants were fed with 'diesel powered' locomotives. They kept concentrated on the prediction that we had a hundred of years of coal left, but were oblivious as to how that coal is delivered to the power plant. But all these changes have some bright spots in them. As the coal producers were able to hire many more workers to manually mine coal, as the diesel powered mining equipment sit idle from lack of diesel fuel.

Now some of the states or bigger cities had the foresight to build one or two electric rail trolleys for public transport. Your only problem is getting to the main road to catch the trolley and then it is a straight ride to the government warehouse.

What happened to Private industry & Money?

Money is nothing more than stored energy. But since the crude dried up, the 'real energy' behind the money has vanished...and so did private industry. What about the coal mines...all government owned. If you want to eat you work..it is that simple.

So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your ass?

Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than that.

Martha Stewart syndrome died out long ago, now people are happy to eat rice and beans and get a clean glass of water to drink.

After all, the government can't afford to fool around decorating everyone's house, they can hardly produce enough food to keep a fraction of the population alive. Yes, tractors, reapers and farming is very crude intensive...but no one bothered to think about that as they continued to squander the worlds petroleum resources.

On a positive note, since most of the population died off from 'natural causes', the government does not have to worry about passing 'population control' any longer. They tried to get that universally opposed program passed for many years, but the public just would not go for it...too UN-American...goes against our religious upbringings...too controversial and all of the rest. We can still hear the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby Killer....Hitler....Impeach the President!!!!

Such objections are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind. As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial man. If you find yourself being distracted with such thoughts as 'too controversial' just ask yourself if the proposed controversy is true, false or I don't know?

This introspective method may help you become truth based and not ego based. You will have made a 'choice divorced of need'...you wont 'need your ego' to support the truth...the truth will be able to stand on its own.

But nature helped us humans out with that hard decision - for nature does not discriminate nor find the truth too controversial or provocative or opinionated to be true. And in the end, nature settled the dispute of population control with even handed justice of 75% of our population dying off, ever reminding us all that nature does not bow to man...it is always man that bows to nature.

But, people hold no grudges against nature and are more in harmony with nature and enjoy a simpler life nowadays. People pick pine needles from trees to make their tea, since there is no jet fuel to import any Darjeeling tea or coffee. Once in a while people are able to kill a bird, a rat or cat to supplement their diet - so we still can find a place of gratitude in our life for such gifts.

Of course one problem still haunts the world?

The last remaining buckets of crude will soon be gone and they have still not found out how to make the tires for the solar powered golf carts and scooters without that critical ingredient of crude oil?

http://www.coaleducation.org/lessons/twe/mcoal.htm

Postscript

"Who Killed the Electric Car?"

This documentary not only discuses electric vehicle in depth, but cover hydrogen fuel cells, ethanol, methanol and biodiesel. A truly outstanding educational tool for anyone interested in this subject.

Get the DVD from your library today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F

Also See:

http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573

http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253

http://www.lastoilshock.com/

http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/0805055762

http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp/0871138883

http://dieoff.org/

http://www.crudeawakening.org/

Here's what one Arboretum has to say about it. http://www.ncsu.edu/jcraulstonarboretum/publications/newsletters/26-vol-11-no-1/26-vol-11-no-1-no-graphics.html

"Good Maps Gone Bad

After the 1997 Plant Heat-Zone Map fiasco, the American Horticulture Society made an even bigger horticultural faux pas when, in 2003, they published a draft revision of the 1990 USDA Plant Hardiness Zone Map. It's called a "draft" version because interested parties notified the USDA about the impending screw-up just prior to publication, and the project was halted immediately. The 2003 draft map, using data from 4,700 weather stations, was compiled using the premise that the climate had warmed so dramatically that only the last 15 years (1987-2001) of climatic data was needed. This recent data shifted Chicago, Illinois, into Zone 6, making for a true horticultural disaster when a real winter such as 2002-2003 occurred. The 2003 map also eliminated the "a" and "b" designations which would put two completely different climates, such as Wilmington, North Carolina, and Wilmington, Delaware, into the same zone. This change was being made to make the map more "readable." The 2003 map also added more tropical zones, 12-15. The 2003 map certainly tops the all-time horticultural "what were they thinking?" list. In 2006, the Arbor Day Foundation released a map similar to the 2003 AHS map, which made the same unfortunate errors in judgment by including only 10 zones and using a 15-year dataset."

Thank you for proving it's not about the truth with you, it's all about pushing your agenda. If you only could get the corn belt to plant like they were the wrong zone just think of how many humans you could starve and the animals could have their planet back.

I didn't misstate anything, you're lying to CYA just like you were by providing a known faulty map because it backed up your agenda.
Notice how I warned Lycheeluva to not use a pellet gun in NYC because of the neighbors without throwing in an additional threat of my own? So yes, you did threaten.

You pull out another red flag with mean. "Mean" also means little. Plants and animals care about extremes. It just happens that my example of how averages are a faulty method applies to "mean" too.

Perhaps you'd better go back to calling people idiots and child abusers. I think you were doing better with that tactic.

I know how you feel. I have rabbit, squirrel, woodchuck, chipmunk, deer, and bear problems. I'd try using both traps and a pellet gun to solve your problem.

My nephew is a pellet gun freak and for squirrels recommends a .177 caliber, single-cock, spring-type pellet gun (air-rifle) of about 1000 fps power, altho a .20 or .22 caliber is good too. He says get a telescopic sight for it and you'll have pinpoint accuracy. He thinks you can get something for around $100.00. You don't need an expensive or fancy gun. He says do NOT get a Co2 gun.

The nice thing about a gun (I use a 20 gauge shotgun myself) is that when you see a problem critter then you can INSTANTLY dispatch it and not worry and wait for it to go into a trap which it might or might not do.

Here's a link, but you can find better prices than these if you look around. Good luck!

http://www.airgundepot.com/popular-hunting-air-guns.html

Plants don't care what the weather was like 500 years ago. Some number of years had to be picked in order to set up the hardiness zones system. The USDA, after much study, came up with the criteria. It is highly unlikely that you know more about how many years should have been used than the team of scientists at the USDA. The Arborday Foundation has made no attempt to skew the data. They only realized, as almost all reasonable people do, that the old maps no longer represented current weather patterns. They attempted to update the information and that's it. I will provide a link so that you can review the basics. I'm not trying to be a smart alec like you seem to be, but I honestly do think that you are missing the basics.

Now to the statement about threats, once again you are changing the argument. First you were accusing me of threatening to call the authorities if I saw someone kill a squirrel. Now that I have made it obvious be copying my initial statement, you've changed it to "you did threaten." So, again, you are shifting the argument. Let me restate my point once more to see if I can put it in a way you can understand. Intentionally causing needless pain to "pests" is not good. It's that simple. Some people enjoy seeing animals suffer, and it's a sign that they are not mentally healthy. As is crystal clear from my statements above, I am not seeking to persuade people that they should never kill an animal.

Just because you disagree with all the experts about how to rate plant hardiness, doesn't mean a thing to me. I will continue to accept the system set up by the experts in the field. The climate in most places is warming. You can refuse to believe it or not, but plants depend on reality not your mental constructs.

Yet again you claim I said something that I didn't. I never "called people idiots." Like much of what you say, you've just made that up out of the blue. Your entire statement about this severely mischaracterized what I said. You really should check your facts before posting.

What you seem to fail to understand is that without the averages of the zone maps it would be impossible to read a zone map. And you don't seem to understand that nothing lives by averages or mean temperature, life depends on extremes and limits. Above or below the needed extreme means death. Not enough of a limit can mean death or stuck dormancy.
Your average moving up 12° means nothing. What matters is what your extreme did. It might matter if what caused your average to move up removed some of your chill hours.
If the biologists are no longer figuring those things in then yes, they are wrong.

Could it be the more extreme USDA map was pulled because global warming is not a fact? Even the global warming people know that and have changed their title to "climate change".
I can buy "climate change" that is always happening. Our summers are not as hot as they were, our winters are colder with less snow, our spring frost is going later and it seems although our first fall frost is the same we have a longer growth period after that. That's change but not warming.

The map you chose would kill half the state of IL. Southern IL (the real zone 6) is vastly different than the middle of 5a/b. That's a lot of squirrel food you desire to kill.
I'm in the south of zone 5a and like I said, our frost date has been bumped nearly a week towards summer. How is that reflected by moving the north of zone 6 up to Chicago???
If the data wasn't skewed the results would not be so far off of reality.

You did help me with the zone maps. I realized they weren't the best representation of how a plant will do. But I didn't realize they were as worthless as they are (only relying on averages) or that they were as politically motivated as they are.
I thought they were still going how they started and using pertinent horticultural and meteorological information.
Maybe you need to read about the maps how they started and what the presently are.

"You did threaten" is not a change at all. "If I saw my neighbor doing that, I'd call." is your original threat so "you did threaten".
You did call someone an idiot. "I have infinitely more respect for a squirrel than some idiot that wants to drown one."
Maybe you should re-read your posts before making them.

Personally I don't even like drowning mice, but I've learned that death is never pretty and it is a fact of life. If you can handle seeing the convulsions of drowning it really doesn't take any longer than any other form of death.

Plants do respond to extremes but are much more reliant on average temperature. Every gardener knows that a plant can often tough it out a little for a short period of time during temperature extremes. The hardiness zone system has been determined to be the most effective way to easily describe how plants deal with temperature. It is based on average annual extremes but has been proven to do a fairly good job describing whether a plant can survive the temperatures experienced at a certain location. Again, it's considered by most to be the best system out there for plant growers. You can bring your tropical plant inside a greenhouse for some protection on the coldest day of the year or even the coldest week of the year in northern areas and it will still be dead come spring. If political agendas have had an impact on these maps, it's certainly on the conservative side. Like I stated above, if a new chart was published using current data, the average zone ratings across most of the US would be increased by somewhere around a full zone. The ONLY way to deny an increase in overall hardiness zone ratings is to ignore the truth.

You are still incorrect about me "threat(ening) of calling the law on someone killing a squirrel." I have checked and it just didn't happen.

The good news (for you) is that you are correct about the idiot comment, and therefore correct in saying "Maybe you should re-read your posts before making them." I guess we both need to do this. With a thread this long, it's getting harder and harder to do that.

Other incidents like the ocean temperature incident have been repeated so often the only group earning disrespect are those who claim warming is a fact, that humans are the cause of it and it will be catastrophic.

Like I stated and the link that you refuse to acknowledge states, putting north of me into zone 6 would equal a horticultural catastrophe.
If any farmers were stupid enough to listen to a map like that the catastrophe would be felt world wide.

I see some arguing that the reason squirrels are such a problem is because they don't have enough space in the wild. That is simply not true. Squirrels (especially Gray Squirrels) are better adapted to living near humans than they are to living in the wild. They are benefiting from civilization and they are in no way, shape, or form, endangered. If anything there is a glut of them, and in cities they have no natural predators.

They are developing an relationship with humans that is parasitic because of this. They are eating the fruit of our labor. This directly harms us. Work that does not go towards survival is a direct harm to humans, evolutionarily speaking.

Now being a former vegetarian (I stopped digesting plant protein), I understand not wanting to kill the squirrels. Heck, I'm in agreement. Squirrels eat my food, I let them.

But I know I'm being soft hearted and I don't look down on those who do kill the squirrels. And I am probably contributing to over-population which is cruel in and of itself.

Now, I have a problem with people who use squirrel catapults, or kill the squirrels with unnecessary pain, but offering a painless death is the way that you handle parasites. I would do the same to head lice.

Just wanted to point out my perspective as someone who double majored in genetics and bio chem.

After extensive research, I am of the opinion that people that claim global warming doesn't exist are equivalent to people that still believe the world is flat (yes those people do exist). A large part of the science about the causes and results of global warming are in their early stages. Certainly we have a lot to learn. But, the fact that global warming exists is as well proven, in my opinion and the opinion of almost everyone I come in contact with, as the fact that the Earth is not flat. To shed a little light on my terminology, I'll add that there are some "unrespectable scientists" that still believe the world to be flat. If you are one of the ones that believe the Flat Earth Theory, don't bother, I'm way to bored to take that one up with you.

After extensive research on the people who don't buy into global warming? I highly doubt you've done any such research. I do believe you may have been fed that line just like the animal rights groups feed you the child abuse line.
Nothing to do with the topic, just another attack by you.

The Earth's climate is in a constant state of change, I'm not living on a glacier but I do remember when cooling was the real claim. I sure remember when summer temperatures were hotter for longer periods and I remember warmer snowier winters. It sure doesn't sound like "global" warming to me.
The farce is that warming is as drastic as claimed, it's global, it will be catastrophic, it is caused by man, it is reversible by man or that at this exact point in time is the perfect climate for all life on Earth.

But the biggest farce is that you will admit that, "A large part of the science about the causes and results of global warming are in their early stages." and then turn around and claim undisputed fact (which means scientific law).
Sorry but it doesn't work like that.
Try using real scientific method without attacking anyone who dares review the data and then maybe I'll start buying what you're selling. But continue acting like you're lying and I'll continue believing that you're lying.

A single tomato hornworm will completely wipe out a tomato plant in 24 hours if I don't check them every day. I don't kill them, but give them a toss into the wetlands next to our property. Probably much less humane, because there won't be anything for them to continue to eat...

The major pest problem I have is mockingbirds and brown thrashers. I've had to resort to building "plant prisons" around my vegetable gardens, at considerable effort and expense. Eight-foot frames, chicken wire, etc. The birds act the same way that others described when talking about squirrel damage. They don't eat one thing to their satisfaction. They peck one hole, destroying the fruit, then move to the next. They've even started pecking into my watermelons, ruining them! Next year I have to grow them in the "plant prison" with the tomatoes. Oh, and did you know that roaches will eat watermelon flowers since they're conveniently near the ground?

I use bird netting over my trees, but this is not a great solution, as it forces branches to grow crooked. Birds still land on it and peck through the mesh. Right now my Celeste fig is covered with mesh over a PVC frame, but I don't know what I'm going to do when it gets bigger. Last year I had a single developing mango that my wife and I were really looking forward to enjoying. Mockingbird made short work of that, just pecking it two or three times when it was still green. Who woulda thought?

Like some others mentioned, I would happily adopt a "share and share alike" mantra...if it would work out that way. The problem is, the pests don't play by the same rules! The numbers of mockingbirds and brown thrashers we have is absolutely astounding, and their foraging pressure on the surrounding landscape is beyond what can reasonably support their numbers. They'll resort to eating insects, but if a sweet treat presents itself, they devour it. If I had a farm or orchard, perhaps it would be different becuase there would be plenty of quantity. But, as with most other backyard growers, there just isn't enough to enjoy "growing your own" and sharing with the wildlife too.

I must admit I've entertained the idea of a pellet gun, but would never do it because I recognize the futility. Just too darn many of them! My project next year is to build another "plant prison" around my blueberry patch, and I'm sure that won't be the last one...

I guess the point I was trying to arrive at, by way of a somewhat circuitous route, is that, the behaviors and tastes of animals change from region to region. Judging one person's frustration based upon your own experience, which may be relatively benign, probably is a bit misguided.

Whenever we can maintain a helpful and supportive Forum, is time well-spent in my book. Name-calling doesn't help anyone, and creates ill-will. Cheers!

-Bruce C.

Gary

I have but one squirrel, though it never ventures into the yard, as the dog would surely go berzerk if it were to be spotted! If it were to be eating my plants and fruits would I "get rid" of it? ... probably ... though, honestly I absolutely hate killing any creatures ... heck, I won't even step or a spider nor kill a bee that might make it's way into the house. Though, recently I had popped off a sapsucker, a beautiful but very destructive bird. It made me sick doing so ... BUT, when a small bird can kill a big beautiful tree, that's where I draw the line. We all must do what we feel is best for our situation. I'll probably get attacked here for what I had done, but I'm strong enough to take it ... lol ...

"I highly doubt you've done any such research."
I'm not a bit surprised. You seem to have a real problem with reality.

"The farce is that warming is as drastic as claimed, it's global, it will be catastrophic, it is caused by man, it is reversible by man or that at this exact point in time is the perfect climate for all life on Earth."
Not sure what you meant, but I'm pretty sure you don't either, so it really doesn't matter.

"...you will admit that, "A large part of the science about the causes and results of global warming are in their early stages." and then turn around and claim undisputed fact."
No conflict whatsoever. It doesn't follow that just because we don't know everything about something that we don't know it exists! We know the sun exists, but there are still lots of things about the sun we don't know.

"Try using real scientific method without attacking anyone who dares review the data and then maybe I'll start buying what you're selling."
Tried that, it didn't work. As ususal, you are lying.

I have no doubt you have experienced an increase during this warming cycle. But soon it will all reverse again.
And where will all the global warming alarmist be, at the dinner table eating squirrel. If I don't get them first. :)

NOAA has a decent website that allows you to study trends in your area. Just use the divisional tab.
http://www7.ncdc.noaa.gov/CDO/CDODivisionalSelect.jsp
You can tailor the graphing to your state and even fine tune it to your general area of the state. And even a particular month.

What you will find is during early ~1905 to ~1935 the USA experienced a warming cycle. Then we had a cooling cycle from 1945-1978. Then back through the current warming cycle.
Unfortunately the yearly avg is not present to see the immediate trends.

If Milankovitch had it right, then we are all in for a doozy. We all might not be far enough south.

jk

Somebody mentioned the concept of how farmers do it. First they load the quad up with a fresh tank of propane and a hot battery, and attach the squirrel blaster. Then they head off to the orchard and find a prime hole. The end of the blaster is inserted into the hole and the appropiate volume of propane is released into the tunnel. The 12' distant trigger is pulled and the spark plug at the end ignites the propane which explodes with enough concusive force to kill the vermin. I asked my farmer friend if he ever touched one off when the squirrel was at the other end of the tunnel thereby blasting one into the air? He said no, but a fair number come running out on fire. One ran into a hay barn and set it on fire. Think about that the next time you're buying organic cherries at Whole Paycheck Market.

My personal most satisfying kills have been while backpacking. The old big flat rock propped up with a stick and a string is crude but effective (payback for many holes chewed in tents). Then there was the time I turned around to see one of the little vermin chewing a hole in my wife's pack: I scored a direct hit to the head with a furriously flung boot- dead squirrel.

Without a doubt humans will lose the war to to the rodents over the eons, so I try to get any small bit of pleasure I can out of won battles.

Down at the public library this evening, browsing through the gardening section and I came across a book called "Squirrel Wars: Backyard Wildlife Battles and How to Win Them." Lots of anecdotes and info. Like how squirrels will continue to raid bird feeders just to toss the seed on the ground when they don't like what's in it. They ain't hungry, they're spoiled brats.

Also managed to get two more of the furry little bastids today, one in the trap and one with the pellet gun (he just wouldn't go in the trap). This after getting three last week. It seems like there's a never ending supply! I hope all the people who feed the birds appreciate how much money I'm saving them :)

whether or not there is global warming is not relevant to this discussion. I fail to see why killing the pest squirrels that do not have natural predators will lead to more global warming. If anything, letting these pests stealing all fruits (or spending WAY too much time and effort to control them effectively w/o killing them) will discourage home growers to plant fruit trees, which will only make global warming worse.

Very nicely put. I hope this doesn't end that easily, I just popped another bowl of popcorn.

BTW, "The farce is that warming is as drastic as claimed, it's global, it will be catastrophic, it is caused by man, it is reversible by man or that at this exact point in time is the perfect climate for all life on Earth" is quite easily understood. Also, I remember a headline in the 70's warning us of the coming ice age.

Dannyboquet wrote, "BTW, "The farce is that warming is as drastic as claimed, it's global, it will be catastrophic, it is caused by man, it is reversible by man or that at this exact point in time is the perfect climate for all life on Earth" is quite easily understood."
Understanding the sentence doesn't mean it makes any sense. The sentence contains a mix of things from unquestionable facts to wild guesses and everything in between. I can run these down briefly if you think it's important.

"The farce is that warming is as drastic as claimed..."
What does this have to do with anything, especially squirrels? And, claimed by who? This sentence is meaningless by itself. Some people are so rapped up in their politics they refuse to even believe it exists, so are they who Myk1 was talking about?

"The farce is that warming is...global..."
It is a proven fact that global warming is global. Unless you redefine global in some weird way, it' really undeniable. There are small pockets where weather patterns have changed to provide a small area that experiences cooler average temperatures, but these are relatively rare and certainly don't make global warming any less of a global effect.

"The farce is that warming...will be catastrophic..."
This is certainly not a determined fact. It's somewhat like if a semi truck is coming toward you at a high rate of speed. Many things could happen. It could swerve and miss you. In some cases, it's hard to know what will happen for sure until it's possibly too late.

"The farce is that warming is...caused by man"
Well, that's is still debatable, but there certainly seems to be a winning side. Not long ago more than 2,500 scientists from 130 countries did an extensive collective study and stated that there is more than a 90 percent chance that human activity is largely responsible for global warming. Of course there's still wiggle room here. One could argue, for instance, that human activity is only responsible for a small part. Of course the real farce is that, again, this stuff has nothing to do with squirrels.

"The farce is that warming is...reversible by man..."
This is anyone's guess. Even Myk1 could have a valid answer for this one. Studies do show that as more warming occurs, changing directions is exponentially harder. It's called thermal momentum. But I haven't heard anyone claim to have a really good hold on where the "tipping point" will occur. This one is just totally up in the air.

"The farce is that warming is...that at this exact point in time is the perfect climate for all life on Earth."
Again, who is making this claim? The only people I've heard mention this are those trying to ignore global warming. I've never heard any scientist make this claim. Every reasonable person, however, should realize that if drastic climate change occurs, it very well could lead to the end of our species. Here again there's wiggle room. The lack of a known "tipping point" rises to the surface. And finally, from the squirrel's standpoint, maybe it could mean the end of the evil monsters slaughtering their innocent relatives. LOL.

delta dave- really surpised that your method worked but will try and give it a go. what do you think of greaing the branch with oil?

Heard it, but never tried it...

-Bruce C.

http://www.unexco.com/SQ1.html

http://www.gardeners.com/Outwitting Squirrels/squirrelslp,default,pg.html

http://www.thriftyfun.com/tf333438.tip.html

http://mgonline.com/squirrel.html

http://www.uri.edu/ce/factsheets/sheets/squirrels.html

Go to photobucket.com. it will give you simple instructions how to load a pic onto its website. once you have done this, underneath each picture, you will see 3 or 4 different codes . you need to copy the code labelled as HTML. Copy that code and post it directly into the text of your posting on this thread. hit the preview button and you will see your thread text and the photo. hit submit or edit as necessary.

whats the first pic supposed to be?

i wonder if it would work with wooden stick instead of a branch. dont really have any branches.

What do you get out of calling them "miserable thieves"? Don't you get enough enjoyment out of killing the poor little things for just trying to survive? I'm really only wanting to understand what's in it for you to call them names and why you seem to have so much emotion built up against them. I'm not sure how good of an example this is, but say you had a termite problem in your house. I'm sure you'd spray to get rid of them. But, if you actually saw one, would you have a big emotional reaction to it and call it names, or would you just kill it? Would it be important to you to make it suffer like the squirrel would while frantically trying to stay afloat for who knows how long?

I'd also like to know what you and Dave think about people doing this to neighborhood pets. I have much more damage done from neighborhood dogs than I do from squirrels. Sometimes, I get upset when I see the damage they do to something I've worked long and hard to create. Do you guys think it would it be alright for me to poison these neighborhood pets or to make a trap that would drown them? Assuming they would die in the trap in at least an hour or two, would that be OK? If not, why not?

Termites ate not one but two of my brother's houses. He's fairly emotion in his hate for termites. Maybe he should've shared his third rebuild with them and found a more humane way to kill them.
People have traps that drown neighborhood pets, they're called swimming pools. My sister has pulled more than one cat out of her pool.

Nice to see you're back working into your attack on the psychological health of those trying to protect their crop, Brandon.

While i agree that letting an animal fight for its life in a bucket is not how i would rid myself of the critters its likely better than some other options. Instead of picking battles over how you feel it shouldn't be done, why don't you suggest some options that you feel are acceptable and then leave it at that. If folks try it your way then hey, you help ease the suffering of a critter, if not at least you tried. Continuing on this path only makes you look more and more like a bleeding heart PETA pusher who wouldn't boil a lobster because it screams when you put it in a pot or would be against recreational fishing because you are pulling a fish out of the water on a hook.

The Fruitnut

A possible option for fruit trees may be some sort of squirrel cone if there are not other access points from nearby trees or structures.

If a kill is a must i have electric mouse trap that seems to work quite readily on mice, I am relatively sure this could easily be adapted to kill other critters and I would think would do so fairly humanely. If it comes to a point that the greedy little things (and yes you can call some animals greedy as some species often take more than they use) then this is the avenue i plan on pursuing. I purposely grow way more than i can ever use so that i don't have to worry about the birds and other animals and so i can share with friends and family however not everyone has this option.

The trap i have i good for one kill before emptying but i am relatively sure it could be modified to be in a permanently armed state and self emptying. If any of you are interested in pursuing this I'd be interested in seeing what comes of it.

My approach is to evaluate the situation and try to determine what method is the best way to deal with the problem while minimizing suffering as much as is reasonable to the animal involved. Another approach is to pitch a temper tantrum, call the animals all kinds of names, and kill it in a cruel manner. Please explain how my approach is of a black and white viewpoint, while the other approach is "colorful". The other may be "colorful", but I think not in the way you are trying to imply.

I would think that the "majority of folks" would approach a situation by evaluating what needs to be done and how best to accomplish the task while minimizing harm. Surely the "majority of folks" aren't out for blood and suffering when it comes to their fellow creatures. I won't take the time to go back and try to evaluate each respondent's method, but from what I can remember, even the "majority of folks" responding to this thread haven't advocated a barbarian approach to their animal issues that I object to. Many folks above claimed they didn't want to cause the animals unnecessary pain.

As a quote I brought up earlier indicates, psychologists pretty much universally believe that people that hurt animals intentionally and unnecessarily are much more likely to have psychological issues and socially destructive behavior. I don't think the "majority of folks" are crazy, so I certainly don't buy your argument that the "majority of folks" approach issues with squirrels with rage and extreme malice toward the animals. Occasionally, I flip the TV over to Animal Planet and watch people, approaching animal problems in the way I object to, getting arrested and put into jail. These aren't the "majority of folks", but mostly people with antisocial behavior and a lack of feeling for living beings.

I think it basically boils down to this: A rational and objective approach to squirrel problems as opposed to an emotional and rage-driven approach benefits everyone and everything involved and is much more likely to provide a more effective result.

"...just that a black and white answer such as no its not ok to kill ever doesn't work where as a grey answer of its ok in some situations if done properly does."
So, you're saying that you agree with my approach after reconsidering or are you getting my response to the issue confused with those of much earlier respondents? Indeed, all along, my approach was basically "its ok in some situations if done properly." Even my first post said, "The least you could do is shoot to kill and not just maim."

myk1,
coating the seeds in spray wax would be a waste of my time and the spray wax. The seeds sink because they are viable and critters eat viable seed. But that's a topic for a different forum.

fruitnut,
There is no such thing as a squirrel proof shelter. They dig down a few feet and the tunnels are 20 to 30 feet long. I have 2.5 acres. Enough said.

afss,
An electric trap big enough to kill a squirrel is also big enough to kill a cat. I don't want to kill a cat.

And finally, to brandon7,
To answer your questions I have a cat and a dog. I have had pets all my life. My current dog is a German Shepard and my cat is a black cat that would just love to cross your path. If I saw my neighbors doing this to one of my pets I would call the police. Squirrels are not pets. Most of my neighbors have horses and a ground squirrel infestation could result in broken legs and horses being put down. They don't have squirrel problems because they use poison. I won't use poison because I have pets. SQUIRRELS ARE NOT PETS! If you were my neighbor and your pet bit my child I would call the police who would see to it that your pet was put to death. Then I would personnaly deal with you. Squirrels are not pets. If a little vermin that lives less than 3 years can kill several things on my property that are over 50 years old then they have to go. I won't live long enough to see a replanted manzanita tree grow as large as the one the squirrels killed. Not to mention the apple, pear, cherry, peach and almond trees. I've lived here 4 years and have never had a squirrel problem.
Yesterday I watched the 4th squirrel die. She was gasping for air while staying afloat on the other 3 dead bodies. It didn't affect me at all. At one point I shook my finger at her and asked "how do you like my trees now?". My niece and I laughed about that for hours. Then we went swimming. It took the 4th squirrel about 5 hours to die because she was able to stay afloat on the other 3 dead bodies. Does this give you pause?
If you are not a vegetarian you should shut the f up.
If you wear leather shoes or belts you should shut the f up.
If you have leather furniture or car seats you should shut the f up.
If you voted for Bush you should shut the f up.
Christ man, get a life, get a dog, get a job, but just shut the f up.
People are reading these forums to learn, not to get preached at. Go away.

Lycheeluva,
Happy hunting.

Thanks for the photos

I think it basically boils down to this: A rational and objective approach to squirrel problems as opposed to an emotional and rage-driven approach benefits everyone and everything involved and is much more likely to provide a more effective result

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Thanks for your feedback Brandon.

I don't think the people replying to this thread fit the bill as you describe above. Sure some are frustrated with their efforts at growing things only to have them destroyed by animals. But this is just basic instinct to survive Brandon. So as I posted before it comes down to preservation of self or let the animals run wild and chip away at our life and possibly our survival.

I did not realize the importance of this 'pest problem' until I started to grow things for the first time this year. I had no idea that animals and birds can strip crops clean before I would even get a bite. I thought they would eat some of this or that, but figured we could all live in harmony. But that is not the case.

Between the bugs, locust, hailstoms, deer, groundhogs, rabbits, squirrels and such I have no idea how the prairie people ever survived.

I will say the bucket of death is an ingenious and quite rational and objective approach to this issue.

Brandon,
You can turn everything you said to me back on you.
The fact that you constantly come up with ad hominem attacks against anyone who holds a different opinion than you speaks volumes.
That is why I keep insisting you're not being truthful.
The people with truth on their side don't launch into attacks having nothing to do with the subject like you do.

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

Absolutely, no need to brow beat others into submission...the truth stands on its own.

And we are each entitled to our opinions.

But, when the subject turns opinions I recall Clint Eastwood's famous line in one of his Dirty Harry series:

"Opinions are like ass.holes...everyone's got one."

We should always he interested in finding truth and peace. If our way is not working then some other way may help. It is good to test and see the results.

The bible reminds us of this "Test everything; hold fast to what is good; abstain from every form of evil," (1 Thess. 5:21) Even if you are an atheist, this concept of testing can be of help to you.

For with such tests, 'the proof of the pudding will be in the eating' and decisions on how to live will not be left only to your ego, but will be grounded in peace.

And to the global warming fanatics...get onto peak oil as your love object.

A few years ago I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about a con man named Charles Ponzi. He was credited with inventing the first pyramid scheme.

The article stated when Ponzi was interviewed he was asked how he was able to swindle so many people so easily, his responded, "When a man's mind is concentrated he is blind."

This case of having your mind concentrated to the point of blindness is not anything new. The ancient philosophers new this well. They called it "putting passion before reason."

Both these areas of passion and reason where the foundation of much philosophical discussion of ethics and virtue with the ancient Greeks.

They knew when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy the passions.

When our minds are occupied with too much wreckage of the past, too many problems and complexities and out of control passions then there is little room left in it for reasoning.

My advice...stop fixating on the minutia and look at the total picture, otherwise blindness will set in.

Peak oil will kill you much faster than global warming will.

Are you still going with the air guns or have you chosen another method of squirrel control?

The gray squirrels in NY NY don't dig tunnels.
The ground squirrels in CA dig tunnels.
At least know your enemy before you speak.
Building a squirrel proof shelter isn't that hard.
Squirrels don't chew thru hardware cloth.
Much less work in the long run than any killing strategy.
And more effective.
There will always be more squirrels moving back in
after you kill some.

The Fruitnut

allen- am still looking into some type of gun but i dont think it will be legal for me to obtain one as i live in nyc. if that turns out to be the case- i will try delta's method in combo with at least 2 traps.

while i really hate the squirrels that eat my fruit- i realize that they r just doing their squirrel job. so while i would have no compunction with killing them, even if they suffer a little, i certainly dont take any joy on their pain and would certainly prefer to remove them without killing them or causing them pain. delta- im sure at least a little of what you wrote about enjoying watching the squirrels suffer was just to get a raise out of brandon

I still pose my previous question from a few days ago -- Where is all of this moral outrage when the animal being killed isn't cute, fuzzy, and something that showed up in a Disney movie? Other than one poster, no one seems to care about moles, voles, squash borers, slugs, etc., but they are all 'God's creatures' are they not? Perhaps it's symptomatic of the society we live in -- would the media follow the daily ups and downs of Britney, Paris, Tom-Kat, or BrAngelina if they weren't the 'beautiful people?' I think the animal rights bleeding hearts are only concerned about the cute, fuzzy little critters.

Despite the fact that one poster seems to think I'm some kind of psychopathic serial killer because I put out poison bait blocks for the voles, it seems to me that I and the vast majority of the rest of the posters on here recognize the need to control vermin species when they get out of hand. If we don't keep things like mice, voles, rats, etc., under control, we'll all end up living in filth and disease as happened during the Middle Ages. And, in the real world, the only practical way to do this is often to kill them. It doesn't mean it's 'fun,' but sometimes, 'a man's gotta do ....'

And, it isn't based on some deep, dark psychological 'need' to harm animals, its based on a simple, pragmatic desire to protect all of our hard work and our financial investment. Trust me, been there, done that, I really did have a blue heron eat $500 worth of koi in an afternoon. No, I didn't kill it or shoot it, I strung fishline all across the pond, which was a pain in the butt, but it worked to deter the herons. Had that not worked, in that case, I would have been screwed, because herons are protected under the Migratory Bird Act of 1919, no exceptions that I know of allow them to be killed.

I did lose many of hundreds of dollars worth of plants to voles in the past few years. Some of them were figs and other woody plants I was overwintering in a deep trench under mulch. When I dug them out in the spring, I LITERALLY had sawdust, nothing else was left. So, I now put out, carefully, in nooks and crannies where pets and desirable wild animals can't get them, LOTS of poison bait blocks. It's expensive, and frankly I wish I didn't have to, but it's better than the alternative of being overrun with voles. The poison bait keeps them to a low level, but doesn't totally eliminate them.

I had a filthy mouse invade my house a few years back. I won't be a hypocrit myself and deny that I didn't get some little sense of satisfaction in hearing the mousetrap go 'snap' when I finally got the mouse that moved into my kitchen cupboards, but I hardly think that makes me a depraved Jeffrey Dahmer type serial killer. There's a big difference between people who are killing 'vermin' species for a legitimate economic or health reason, and between those mentally disturbed or sociopathic individuals who do torture animals, usually domestic animals, for some sick reason. I think the vast majority of us know the difference between a vole or squirrel and the neighbor's cat.

And, I don't see how taking a little satisfaction in eliminating a serious pest problem which has been plaguing you makes someone a bad person. Now, when you take it to the level of George W. going after Saddam Hussein on contrived charges, just to show up or show off to his daddy, well, that's a whole 'nother ball of wax, starting a war, killing thousands of people, and sinking this country into a political and economic quagmire. When it rises to that level, then, I think you can legitimately ask questions about someone's psychological makeup and mental stability. But, those of us shooting a squirrel or two to save our fruit trees don't exactly rise to the George W. level. I apologize to any Neocons and Bush supporters out there, dont' want to turn this into a purely political debate,just had to vent a bit and make that analogy.

By the way, for the squirrel huggers out there, are you aware of the fact that some communities BAN or LIMIT the feeding of squirrels and other wild animals and birds BECAUSE feeding them is a public health and safety issue? Roseville, Michigan is one such community, and there are others. And, while rare, squirrels CAN transmit rabies, among other diseases.

Finally, a couple of other thoughts. Lobster -- yum! And, as someone named Dave pointed out above, I don't know WHY I'm wasting my time arguing this with someone who very well might be some 14 year old idealist who has never lived in the real world. Ah, the joys of the 'net.

Allenwrench -- you might really enjoy this forum. Check it out, seems to be right up your alley, based upon all of your recent posts:

http://www.idigmygarden.com/forums/

Dennis
SE Michigan

Dennis
SE Michigan

I like that line you used.

"There's a big difference between people who are killing 'vermin' species for a legitimate economic or health reason, and between those mentally disturbed or sociopathic individuals who do torture animals, usually domestic animals, for some sick reason."

People like Brandon lack the intellectual honesty to make that distinction. As far as they can understand, there are only two things on the planet. Perfect nature and evil humanity. It's a hippie thing really. They need to feel themselves to be more evolved socially and morally. Ergo, any actual reason, as you have suggested, must be ignored in favor of their own elitism. After Brandon gets into High School and gets a little action he'll settle down, and perhaps in ten years when he finishes college and gets a job and actually knows what it's like to work for something, he'll likely have a much different take on the topic of protecting your own. Until then, his mom buys everything and he has no idea how the real world works, least of all it seems nature. Cut the kid some slack, he's 12 and he types really well.

d
a v
e

And oh yes squirrels absolutely will chew through hardware cloth (even the EU Sparrows wear it out after pecking at it for years, I've got holes worked in the stuff I covered my attic eaves with, which they get their heads stuck and I laugh because by the time I get the extension ladder to put them out of their misery they're dead so I quit trying).
I had a wounded squirrel put a nice gouge in a hunting knife, if they want in hardware cloth wouldn't stop them any quicker than it would me with a pair of nips. It's like any other hindrance method, you hopefully make it not worth the effort. The same principle applies to killing them, once they figure out the risk isn't worth the reward they back off.

delta9dave,
I was wondering if it was the odor of the seeds attracting them. By the time the squirrels are in the water I don't think their mind is on eating any more.
You could probably use anything that looks like seeds to attract them, unless it's the scent, in which case the wax would cover the scent.
A spray wax would be pennies per application and it sounds like you are going through pounds of seeds a day.

david52,
Squirrel skin is pretty tough stuff and the kill zone on a squirrel is pretty small.

Woohoo! I knew Brandon was heading back towards his animal rights pushed ad hominem claiming the people protecting their crops are psycho killers at heart.
Thanks for not letting me down.

Just a thought -- could you cut down on the expense of the sunflower seeds by using some styrofoam packing peanuts or the little styrofoam beads from a beanbag chair for the bulk of the floating mat, and just sprinkle enough sunflower seeds on top to attract the squirrels/gophers? Seems to me that might work ok, and the styrofoam peanuts or beans would be reuseable almost indefinitely.

Another thought -- my brother-in-law makes a similar mouse/vole killing contraption out of a five gallon bucket based on the same principle, but he suspends a little ball of peanut butter from some dental floss over the water from the rod. Perhaps that might work, too, don't know, just a thought.

Dennis
SE Michigan

"Whenever black, grey and fox squirrels, opossums or weasels are injuring property on occupied farms or lands or dwellings, they may be taken at any time in any manner, by the owners or occupants thereof or by a person authorized in writing by such owner or occupant.

No license or permit from the department is required for any taking authorized by this section."

You can read more on the "DEC Website". Your trees and their fruit qualify as property and you are totally within your rights to put down as many squirrels as necessary to protect them.

I sympathize with your living in NYC and I suggest you try trapping since the air-rifle route is out of the question. Here are a couple of links to a much more sympathetic crowd: Look Here and Here

Be glad you don't live in California:"Fourth Ground Squirrel Tests Positive For Plague"

Or Rochester: "Squirrel causes 22-minute power outage in western Rochester"

Good luck in the tree-rat wars. I've taken down more than I can remember in the past few years and they just seem to keep coming.