LOL at coons. When still in Illinois I had tossed a bunch of Halloween suckers in the trash that the ants had gotten into. The next morning I found a pile of sucker sticks in the yard! I laughed for days at the mental picture of these coons sucking on suckers in the yard. :)
amy
Amen! Coons and skunks observed active in the DAYTIME should be treated as rabid.
amy
Animal control capturing a coon in the daytime is NOT going to release it. It will be destroyed....unless someone is exposed...then it will be destroyed and the head sent to the lab to test for rabies.
amy
Agreed. I grew up with electric fences. Although we did have one ditz sister who could ALWAYS be convinced "the fence wasn't on but would she go check it for us?" :)
amy
THAT sucks! Ya'll should pay more taxes. :)
amy
You may speak for the animal control where you worked but you do not speak for all animal control agencies. Our local control will release the animal several miles from its capture point.
Dick
Are you telling me your animal control will release a racoon captured in the daytime?
amy
"Richard Cline" wrote
How do you know this - for sure? I'm not saying that this may not be the case somewhere but it sure would be the exception, plus being just plain stupid. Several miles from the capture point may be in my back yard and I (purely as an example) sure don't need any more coons who are into predation 'round these parts, plus the chance of importing various diseases such as scabies, parvo, rabies, etc. If you have a problem - deal with it - don't export it to another area for someone else to have to solve for you.
A retired game warden hunting buddy of mine used to get called out on road injured deer and every time there were yuppies and/or children involved he would tell them he was going to take the injured deer to the "deer hospital." Until they left the scene...
Skip
Skip & Christy Hensler THE ROCK GARDEN Newport, WA
Correct. I was mixing two ideas in too large of a bowl. :-)
"William W. Plummer" wrote in news:JVLoc.660$Dz.92685@attbi_s52:
Why not? Flimsier excuses have been used to justify more obvious crimes.
Would it have been better to just shoot the kids? You don't have to kill them, just a couple of bullets in the legs. They'll have a harder time stealing next time, gimping around being crippled and what not. Of course if you're a bad shot and hit one in the head, save it for the judge.
Curiousity got the better of me ...
Safest is a battery-powered, pulsing (as opposed to continuous) electric fence controller bearing Underwriters Laboratories label ANSI/UL69 (Electric Rence Contollers) One town's regulations specified that the current pulse a maximum of 60 times a minute with the duration of each pulse a max of
1/10 second and be 25 milliamps or less. This is on the high side; the newer controllers have pulse duration around 1/1000 second. Voltages seem to run in the 5K-7K range. The shorter pulse duration also has the advantage of not heating dried vegetation to combustion temperature.
It's not unheard of. We had a baby raccoon trapped in our garage behind pegboard last summer. The town wouldn't touch the situation and referred us to a private contractor. Cost us $145 to have the guy take it out and release it in our yard.
BTW, after seeing how pi$$ed off that animal was, there's no way I'd try to release one from a trap myself. And this was a raccoon that was only about 3 months old. Better left to professionals.
I'd have spent a dollar on letting the car idle for a half gallon of gas, or so, then removed the carcass.....
Mark (just trying to save you $144 next time) Dunning
reading in misc.rural.
fun part is that depending on how new the car is, that might not work. since about 1995, the car computers have been smart enough to stop the engine when the oxygen level falls below 16% or so...and with the modern cat cons, that might not have the carbon monoxide level high enough for more than a head ache.
ck
| >Mark (just trying to save you $144 next time) Dunning | | reading in misc.rural. | | fun part is that depending on how new the car is, that might not work. | since about 1995, the car computers have been smart enough to stop the | engine when the oxygen level falls below 16% or so...and with the | modern cat cons, that might not have the carbon monoxide level high | enough for more than a head ache.
Actually the variation in O2 levels as controlled by the computer is not that great. Regardless it is the blood's affinity for CO that is the danger and CO levels way lower than can be minimally produced by an internal combustion engine are sufficient to kill after prolonged exposure. The key is time. I should also mention that CO is heavier than O2 so the atmosphere at the bottom of the rat hole will be have increasingly concentrated CO levels. If all else fails the critter will have one h*ll of a head ache.
C = 12, O = 16, N = 14
CO = 28, O2 = 32, N2 = 28
R, Tom Q.
"Tom Quackenbush"
| > I should also mention that CO is heavier than O2 so the atmosphere | >at the bottom of the rat hole will be have increasingly concentrated CO | >levels. If all else fails the critter will have one h*ll of a head ache. | | C = 12, O = 16, N = 14 | | CO = 28, O2 = 32, N2 = 28
The real world physics/dynamics is not quite that simple but sufficient to say CO is heavier than air and will settle to the lowest level i.e. the bottom of the rat hole.
Are you sure you're not thinking of CO2?
Carbon monoxide is obviously lighter than air (but not by much). If you don't believe me, Google for "carbon monoxide lighter air".
R, Tom Q.
Tom Quackenbush wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:
If you work out Van der Waal's equation:
making CO2 the most dense (unless I solved the equation wrong which is entirely likely: v^3 - bv^2 = av - ab - RT = 0).
The difference between CO and O2 doesn't seem remarkable enough to be significant, but I guess at greater concentrations it'd be workable. I think you'd be more likely to kill yourself than the rat, though.
[I'm not a chemist or physicist, so all this could a bunch of hokey.] (rec.gardens)
Well, the way you're using it IS a bunch of hokey. You've calculated molar density, not mass density. That's equivalent to saying 100 bowling balls takes up more space than 100 baseballs, since a 'mole' is just a fixed number of atoms (somewhat more than a 'sh*tload'). It says nothing about which is 'heavier'. You're better off just ignoring molar density (as the previous poster did ) since, as you note, they're all pretty close, and just going with the mass density. CO2 is denser than 'air', and CO is slightly lighter.
Kelly
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.