Woman accused of killing 4,000 birds

[Guest MrRant]

FORT MYERS, Florida (AP) -- The owner of a fish hatchery has been charged with killing 4,000 endangered or protected birds and an alligator, police said.

 

Fish and wildlife officials arrested Vicky Davidson, 40, of Arcadia, on Tuesday after a six-month, state and federal wildlife investigation.

 

Davidson faces at least six violations of Florida law and the federal migratory bird act, said Gary Morse, a Florida Fish and Wildlife spokesman. The charges range from a third-degree felony to a second-degree misdemeanor.

 

Wildlife officials said Davidson purchased 25,000 shotgun shells and told her employees to shoot at anything that posed a threat to her fish. Wood storks, black-neck stilts, cattle egrets, eastern meadowlarks, herons and at least one alligator were killed over 11 months, Morse said.

 

DeSoto County Jail released Davidson Tuesday night after she posted $4,500 bail. Davidson does not have a listed phone number and could not be reached for comment.

 

Can't afford a fence or some type of screen but can afford $4,500 bail and 25,000 shotgun shells?

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Funny I was going to print this story up, but compare it with this one. Which person, the woman or the two kids, will get more jail time? (LOVED the last sentence saying "she never thought the jury's verdict would result in prison time for the boys.")

 

http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/10/17/father.k...d.ap/index.html

 

PENSACOLA, Florida (AP) -- A judge Thursday threw out the convictions of two boys found guilty in the slaying of their father, who was bludgeoned with a baseball as he slept.

 

Circuit Judge Frank Bell ordered prosecutors and defense attorneys to try to resolve the case. He said he would order a new trial for Alex and Derek King, ages 13 and 14, if the talks failed.

 

Alex was 12 and Derek 13 on Nov. 26 when their father was killed and his house set on fire in nearby Cantonment.

 

The brothers were facing prison terms of 20 years to life under state sentencing guidelines because they were tried as adults rather than juveniles. They were convicted of arson and second-degree murder without a weapon.

 

The victim, Terry King, 40, died from blows to the head with an aluminum baseball bat. The six-member jury concluded an adult co-defendant, Ricky Chavis, wielded the weapon but that the boys were accomplices by letting him in the house.

 

Jury forewoman Lynne Schwarz said at a courthouse rally for the boys prior to the hearing that she never thought the jury's verdict would result in prison time for the boys.

[Guest EricMM]

BURN HER!!!!

 

Endangered species and Biological Diversity are NO JOKE!

 

She needed to use said screen or something.

 

Bitch.

[Guest DrTom]

The Endangered Species Act is a joke, Eric, and it stopped being funny years ago. Species evolve and die off all the time, and only human arrogance would wrong-headedly dictate that we should determine which ones get protected. Let natural selection take its course.

 

Having said that, I certainly think what the woman did was detestable, "endangered species" or not.

[Guest Youth N Asia]

But I thought everyone hated birds...

[Guest EricMM]

Natural selection is one thing, humans killing off massive amounts of species unnecessarily is another.

 

I don't have any "scientific proof" as to why this is bad for us. I just think it's wrong. The Island of Madagascar was once an island populated almost entirely by birds. They evolved to almost every niche on the food chain. You had huge carnivore birds, eagles with wingspans of 8 feet! All different kinds of birds, and then they all died in the space of 50 years.

 

I just think it's a great loss.

 

I understand these things happen, but not at the current rate. We are in the midst of a 6th extinction of species and WE are the cause.

 

*EDIT*

Let natural selection take its course.

The only species that thrive around us are mice, pigeons, and cockroaches. Do you want to live in a world of vermin?

*EDIT*

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Shooting a bunch of animals with a shotgun isn't natural selection, though. If all those birds were eaten by predators, then I wouldn't give a shit. As it is, I do give a shit, and hope she gets a lengthy sentence.

[Guest DrTom]

I understand these things happen, but not at the current rate. We are in the midst of a 6th extinction of species and WE are the cause.

Well over 90% of the species that have ever gone extinct did so before man ever evolved and took his first step. I don't think we should go around and just wantonly kill animals in the name of progress, but I also don't think it's the job of the federal government to decide that certain species are worthy of protection. That's caused problems before, notably in the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, and I think it's a crock of shit that people are inconvenienced and put out of their homes because of a goddamn owl.

 

We are the stewards of the planet, and we have an obligation to treat nature and her creatures with respect. However, we are also the top of the evolutionary ladder, and we shouldn't concern ourselves overmuch with natural selection that goes on below us.

[Guest DrTom]

Shooting a bunch of animals with a shotgun isn't natural selection, though. If all those birds were eaten by predators, then I wouldn't give a shit. As it is, I do give a shit, and hope she gets a lengthy sentence.

I'm not arguing that. As I said, I think what she did was detestable, regardless of the birds' status on some silly federal list.

[Guest EricMM]

If we are aware that a species is on the verge of extinction, I don't think it is erronious for the government to implement some regulation, especially since the government might be more aware of these things than average people.

 

Well over 90% of the species that have ever gone extinct did so before man ever evolved and took his first step.

 

That's absolutely true. But it's been a long time, and it's been very spread out.

 

Whatever, I think we pretty much agree on the issue. I just feel the government actions are necessary because we all see what happened when there weren't any government actions in place.

 

Or do you think there would be the same amount of species around now if not for the Endangered Species Act?

[Guest KoR Fungus]

What difference does it make how many species are around? Is your life somehow better if you know that 20 condors are in cages in some zoo somewhere being kept alive? Is the world a better place because there are 1432333 differenct species instead of 1432332? A good number of the species that are being artificially kept alive for no particular reason aren't even living in any sort of natural habitat, so it's pretty silly to argue that they are benefitting anything in any way. I'm all for protecting the environment, but the Endangered Species Act does the opposite of that by making everyone think that environmentalists are total nutcases who should just be ignored. In supporting the Endangered Species Act, you are agreeing that humans should be put out of their homes and construction projects should be abandoned to protect meaningless animals that aren't even plentiful enough to have any impact on any ecosystem whatsoever. And many of these animals we are protecting aren't even going extinct because of us. They're going extinct because they aren't adapted for their niche, and they probably would have gone extinct whether we were here or not. The Delmarva Fox Squirrel is always my example for this. Come on, we're going out of our way to protect a squirrel that's too fat to climb a tree? Um, *why*?

 

If we can protect endangered species without inconveniencing humans, that's fine, but humans shouldn't have to make any sort of significant sacrifice for the sake of some poorly adapted, meaningless animal.

 

That said, this person is a heartless asshole that should go to prison. Massive killing of animals is completely unacceptable.

[Guest godthedog]

What difference does it make how many species are around? Is your life somehow better if you know that 20 condors are in cages in some zoo somewhere being kept alive? Is the world a better place because there are 1432333 differenct species instead of 1432332? A good number of the species that are being artificially kept alive for no particular reason aren't even living in any sort of natural habitat, so it's pretty silly to argue that they are benefitting anything in any way. I'm all for protecting the environment, but the Endangered Species Act does the opposite of that by making everyone think that environmentalists are total nutcases who should just be ignored. In supporting the Endangered Species Act, you are agreeing that humans should be put out of their homes and construction projects should be abandoned to protect meaningless animals that aren't even plentiful enough to have any impact on any ecosystem whatsoever. And many of these animals we are protecting aren't even going extinct because of us. They're going extinct because they aren't adapted for their niche, and they probably would have gone extinct whether we were here or not. The Delmarva Fox Squirrel is always my example for this. Come on, we're going out of our way to protect a squirrel that's too fat to climb a tree? Um, *why*?

 

If we can protect endangered species without inconveniencing humans, that's fine, but humans shouldn't have to make any sort of significant sacrifice for the sake of some poorly adapted, meaningless animal.

 

That said, this person is a heartless asshole that should go to prison. Massive killing of animals is completely unacceptable.

i could be wrong, as it's been a while since i've had bio, but i believe the general argument goes something like this:

 

ecosystems (is that the right term?) are pretty sensitive to change. each species has its niche, and if it goes away the niche is no longer filled & the whole thing is thrown out of balance.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

Yeah, that is the general argument, but that argument goes much more toward protecting threatened species than it does to protecting endangered species. In most cases when talking about endangered species, the number of surviving organisms is so low that they are no longer filling any niche. This is especially true of organisms that either live only in captivity or live only in highly controlled environments. We're basically forcing them to survive, and they're certainly not serving any ecological purpose. I say it's a huge waste of money.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If the only specimens of a certain species are in captivity, then humans aren't hindered by their existence. There's really no reason to go ripping away at an endangered species' habitat when there's so many other places to go. Log a different woods or build a house or factory a few miles away. Wiping out a species by building a dam or a road is NOT natural selection, and the ecosystem will change accordingly, even if the change is slight.