Text 11367, 203 rader
Skriven 2008-02-20 16:54:16 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Kommentar till text 11301 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Shootings in USA
========================
19 Feb 08 10:24, Ward Dossche wrote to Roy Witt:
RW>> RW>> WD> In the 1800 many, if not most, settlers venturing west went
WD> ...
RW>> RW>> Kentucky was a territory of he US in the very first part of the
RW>> 19th RW>> centure. Daniel Boone ventured forth before any other
RW>> white man.
RW>> WD> Kentucky is not exactly "west".
RW>> It was west when the colonies were still Brit...it was west until
RW>> the pioneers, Lewis and Clark made it east with their journey up the
RW>> Missouri river.
WD> We were talking "1800's" ... "Kentucky" and "the west".
Yeup. Kentucky was a western territory before 1800. It was west of what
was later to be called West Virginia. Daniel opened up Kentucky, which was
on the western fringe of the original colonies in the late 1700s. Lewis
and Clark traveled up the Missouri River, leaving from St Louis, in what
was later to be called the state of Missouri, in 1804.
WD> Lewis and Clark made their journey from 1804 to 1806 (the markers are
WD> all over Montana which is sort of my second home).
Those markers are in Missouri as well. (I've traveled through, around,
over and above St Louis over the past 4, nearly 5, decades)
WD> When they started their overland excursion in 1804, their starting
WD> point was St.Louis which at that moment was already several hundred
WD> miles west of present day Kentucky.
Yeup...but Kentucky had to be opened up before anyone would venture west
from the colonies. The French, meanwhile, opened up the Mississippi River,
making it easy to settle the then west from both sides all the way from
Louisiana to Wisconsin and on into Canada.
WD> So Kentucky in the 1800's can hardly be identified as "the West".
It is, in any case. If you look at a map of the US, you'll see that
Kentucky extends as far west as the Mississippi...the easiest route to the
Mississippi back then was either the Ohio river or by wagon through the
Cumberland Gap and the full length of the state. Kentucky was certainly
the 'west' as far as any colonialist in the original 13 colonies were
concerned and they're early US citizens. Originally part of Virginia,
Kentucky became the 15th state in 1792.
RW>> According to the Norwegians, it's a Norwegian administered
RW>> territory. According to their neighbors on the island, it's a
RW>> Russian administered territory.
WD> Having been there I would go for the Norwegian version.
Since there are two major settlements there, one Norwegian and one
Russian, why would you need to choose?
RW>> Only citizens from signatory
RW>> countries that signed that treaty may live there without permission
RW>> from the other signatories.
WD> It's a lot lot lot more complicated than that but one doesn't need to
WD> be a citizen of a contracting party to the Svalbard treaty (which
WD> basically is about mining) in order to live there. Question is: who
WD> would want to live there?
Miners, of course.
RW>> WD> When you take the plane from Longyearbyen to Tromso (Norway),
RW>> you
RW>> WD> must pass customs and immigration there.
RW>> Of course, sinc you're leaving one part of Norway for another,
RW>> offshore.
WD> Bullshit. I never passed customs nor immigration in Norway upon
WD> returning from Svalbard.
So you lied...what's new?
WD> It's not even fun to fish for you, you take the bait too easy.
There was no need to look into it, since you always tell the
truth...Bullshit!
WD> And "offshore" in most of the world means going to a production
WD> facility on a manmade, usually floating, steel contraption in the
WD> water. I was there too.
Offshore from Los Angelos is Catalina Island. Offshore from San Diego, but
in Mexican waters, are the Coronado Islands...There are a few ships
passing offshore San Diego that go from San Pedro's offshore docks to the
waters outside of Mexican territoryal waters off Baja to go fishing. The
Bermudas are offshore of Florida, etc...
Let me know when you figure out the meaning of an English word that is in
common use here. BTW, there are oil rigs offshore of Santa Barbara too,
but they're not in use.
RW>> That would depend on the registration of your boat. A US registered
RW>> boat would be stopped. A Russian registered boat would not, since
RW>> Russia is a signatory to the treaty.
WD> No fishing vessel will be stopped, certainly not a US registered one
WD> since the US are an original signatory.
News to me, but if you say so, it's gotta be the truth, right?
RW>> The only bears on the endangered species list are the Grizzly,
RW>> American Black Bear and the Louisiana Black Bear...no mention of
RW>> Polar Bear in that list, anywhere. However, the Polar Bear has been
RW>> *proposed* as an addition to the list, due mostly to the changing
RW>> sea ice seen in Alaska.
WD> When the WWF considers them "endangered" then that is enough for me.
What would the Workd Wrestling Federation have to do with an endangered
species list?
WD> A species is not "endangered" because the US puts it on its own list,
WD> it is "endangered" merely because it is.
The only way for it not to be hunted in the US, is for it to BE listed in
the US endangered species list. The US Fish and Game department issued a
'proposal' to list it, but it hasn't been listed yet. Meanwhile, Alaska's
rights to Polar Bear hunting licensees have been recinded by the USFG...
RW>> WD> But what you must do when you encounter one is to first shoot
RW>> him in
RW>> WD> the shoulder in order to break that joint and cripple the
RW>> animal.
RW>> WD> When that has been done and he is immobilised you must finish
RW>> him
RW>> WD> with one or two shots from up close, but not too close, in the
RW>> head.
RW>> Canadian Polar Bear Hunting License cost and season.
WD> And the number of bears that can be taken that way?
How many tags did you pay for?
Had you not cut that info, it would still be here and you could read that
for yourself.
RW>> Sure Ward...whatever you say. FYI, the Mauser military round is not
RW>> the round of choice among bear hunters.
WD> I do not dispute that, but we were not talking about bear hunting. It
WD> started by Bob Bashe making incorrect statements about Polar Bears in
WD> Scandinavia and the untrue necessity to be armed there. I expanded
WD> that to Svalbard,because I was there, and how it affected me.
WD> The standard rifle used there for "protection" against Polar bears,
WD> this is totally different than "going hunting" for them, is the
WD> Mauser military rifle. Apparently they do the trick, I shot there
WD> with it and was shown how to deal with possible Polar bear attack.
WD> Video demonstrating the technique was used.
That rifle won't even stop a Grizzly and you expect me to beleive you feel
safe with it against a Polar Bear...Did you see the size of the one in the
photo I left the url too here? That Mauser would be like shooting a deer
with a .22...neither one of them is going to stop the animal at all.
RW>> Once you compare the size of the bear to an object of known
RW>> size, you'll see and understand why.
WD> No argument there, but we were instructed and trained for shooting
WD> such a Polar bear in the shoulder to take it down first and then
WD> finish it off.
That round will only piss him off. Hitting that small of a target is
nearly impossible when you're faced with a charging bear, let alone when
it's a sitting duck. It's one thing to hold a gun in your hands and
pretend you're the great hunter, but when reality sets in, you're nerves
are beginning to shake your whole body. You can't draw a bead because
you're not steady. You will be mauled by that bear and you will surely die
if you piss him off. You're gonna die any way you look at it. This is why
Canada requires you to hunt with a guide, who is your backup in case your
nerves aren't made of steel.
WD> Then, even if it was a life-threating matter, the governor of
WD> Svalbard does not take that lightly and you will be flown to the
WD> mainland to be prosecuted.
They should prosecute you for being under-armed.
RW>> WD> There are no Park Rangers in National Forrests.
RW>> Right! They're called National Forest Rangers in the National
RW>> Forest.
WD> Park Rangers and National Forest Rangers have a totally different
WD> mission.
Well, duhhh...
R\%/itt
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
* Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)
|