JohnDBarrow

I agree. Businesses best serve the public when the public holds them. Why did stupid Americans vote otherwise to privatize utilities then complain about big electric bills? Americans are indoctrinated that capitalism is always a "good" thing.

Apparently, the government did nothing about it. Apparently, some people favor acting upon emotions over sound reasoning. I can see my remark with the word "conservation" in it got scrapped.

I live in middle America where the plains are swept with winds almost nonstop. I figured my local grid is powered by clean and green wind turbines. I figured my posts here are brung to you by clean renewable energy. The wind, it seems, is the solution to pollution. As Bob Dylan once sang, "The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind."

My thread involving sensible wildlife conservation was just locked. It just goes to show how far emotions vs hard facts and truths have infiltrated academia. I just don't know what warm-and-fuzzy stuff to post at this site that makes others here feel good.

This following video is a testament to brain-dead idiots in Pinko anti-American state capitol buildings who don't know a Walker treeing hound from a Walker Colt.

Science is human technical knowledge. It can be applied for good or evil purposes. I thank those very much who've applied science to bring me the air conditioner in my home and the one in my automobile so I don't die of a heat stroke or an asthma attack on very hot days. I appreciate those who are applying science to try to make cancer a thing of the past. I appreciate those who are applying science in the name of getting mankind off fossil fuels for good by substituting those nasty, dirty finite things for clean and safe renewable energy means. I deplore those who have applied science to create weapons of mass destruction to cause widespread death and suffering. I appreciate those who are applying science to try to protect Americans from possible nuclear attacks from evil nations abroad.

The video above is the best way I have found so far to show how hunting can be applied as a feasible tool to manage wildlife wisely in my own humble opinion.

Hunters generate revenues for game wardens, state biologists and conservation officers and such to operate in the United States of America through game licensing and tag fees. Explosives would create a fire hazard in forests. Well-placed bullets from proper centerfire rifles are much more humane than poisons. Hunting bear and other fur-bearing animals with hounds is a romantic adventure. Hunters have to pay states for the privilege to enjoy such romantic pursuits. The cry of speaking Walker treeing hounds in the woods below a treed bear or cougar is a joy to hear echoing through the trees. All of that helicopter stuff would just be a tax-payer burden. All of that burnt helicopter fossil fuel would not be Mother Earth friendly unless the flying machines were to otherwise run on biofuels from corn or green hydrogen, perhaps. The explosives would also destroy valuable trees, for you tree-huggers! The nose of a trained Walker treeing hound (moreover, a pack of them) is quite keen and efficient. This natural sniffer can home in on a bear or a big cat like a heat-seeking missile. Otherwise, these animals would be as evasive as Bigfoot to try to track.

Harvesting animals unlawfully is POACHING. Harvesting animals IAW game regulations is NOT poaching. If scientists determine that so many animals must be harvested for the good of the species or the environment, then so be it. I am a deer and dove hunter myself. I strictly follow the game laws. If the animal in question was lawfully taken, I don't care what legitimate business the pelt is involved in. I would mount a standing full-body bull giraffe in my private hunting lodge if I were to have the wherewithal to lawfully take one in an African safari perhaps if it were a rogue bull putting local villagers in danger. Naturally, I would want the airplane and the safari vehicles for my safari adventure to be powered by renewables to be in good conscience. Also, if an animal or two must be killed for conservation efforts, I believe in giving law-abiding sport hunters first crack at it. Hunters generate revenues through game tags, ammunition sales and licensing fees that go toward wildlife management. Having only government officials to cull herds creates an unnecessary taxpayer burden.

Maybe if Earth returns to primitive living, that might even be a good thing.

There is nothing that convinces me now that man, for the most part, won't one day return to horses, camels, asses, reindeer, llamas, sled dogs and oxen for general land transportation and draft animals for farming work and ships with sails for travel and shipping at sea. Wood might someday widely be used again for heat and cooking and steam locomotives to haul trains or to power steam-driven farm tractors. Then again, man might secure sustainable clean energy forms to power his modern machines of modern civilization, power his comfortable automobiles and heat/cool his homes until such time he becomes extinct upon planet Earth.

All joking aside, who agrees here that the findings of trained wildlife biologists, not legislation based solely upon public emotions, are best to properly manage wildlife? I agree that regulated sport hunting is an important tool in the overall wildlife management picture. I also agree that if fur-bearing predators must be thinned in numbers, hounds are an important tool for hunters to efficiently do this.

If governments were smart, they would pay strict attention to the conservation experts: wildlife biologists. That California banned hounds for black bear hunts back in 2013 was stupid. By the same token, the mountain lion (or cougar) in Texas is not protected at all and there is a green light there to hunt them year-round. Texas doesn't bother to manage its cougar numbers well. Here is a message to me via Gun Owners of America email from Mark Jones, an American wildlife biologist, as follows: "Colorado's Proposed Ban on Mountain Lion Hunting is a Warning to All American Hunters Dear John, Anti-hunting groups have forced Colorado Proposition 127 on the November 5 ballot as an "Initiated State Statute" designed to prohibit hunting of mountain lions and bobcats. If passed, this initiative would destroy a long tradition of science-based wildlife management and mountain lion hunting in the state of Colorado. Sadly, the Colorado anti-hunting initiative is about more than mountain lions or even a specific state. This attempted ban is a warning to all American hunters that ant-hunting and anti-gun forces nationwide want to destroy our firearms culture and hunting traditions. The Colorado measure ignores the fact that populations of lions and bobcats are healthy and thriving, and hunting is carefully managed by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Furthermore, the sweeping language used in this Colorado initiative could be expanded in the future to ban the hunting of other game animals like deer, elk, and sheep. California implemented a similar mountain lion hunting ban decades ago, and the state now spends millions in taxpayer funds each year to pay government-funded employees to control lion populations as hunters are no longer able to participate in the wildlife management process. California's experience tells us that if Colorado mountain lion hunting is banned, it is likely that government-funded lethal removal will be necessary to protect humans, livestock, and pets in many circumstances. Anti-hunting groups won't stop with this Colorado initiative. While Colorado lion and bobcat hunters may be the target today, anti-hunting groups have tried to ban, and plan future attempts to ban, the hunting of many animals in other jurisdictions across the Country.     Hunters throughout America must understand that these types of efforts are never about science-based wildlife management. Leftist anti-hunters and anti-gun groups just want to remove hunters from the process of wildlife management and destroy the American hunting traditions. A ban on hunting your favorite species could be coming to your state next. As many as 10 million American hunters are not registered to vote, and many other hunters don't go to the polls or don't vote for candidates who reflect their values. Hunters everywhere need to get out and vote on November 5 for candidates who will protect the American Hunting Traditions. At Gun Owners of America, our Second Amendment Hunters Program works every day to protect the American Hunting Traditions. Please visit our website (https://www.gunowners.org/hunting/) and be on the lookout for ways you can get more involved in helping us protect hunting traditions in the coming months. Kind Regards, Mark Jones Certified Wildlife Biologist® National Director, Hunter Outreach Buffalo, Wyoming"

Thank you. You have made it a much clearer picture to me now that the biggest obstacle that stands in the way of total freedom from finite energy sources is politics and Big Business. I will agree there and not argue that. I don't believe electric cars break any laws of nature. It seems as if man himself tries to defy nature many times. I do understand that nature only provides man but so many options for the ability to harness and use energy. It seems as if the materials to make batteries for EV automotive use are quite rare and much damage to the earth is done by mining these.

It's a question of the availability of resources. Do you believe that batteries for automobiles will someday match the energy density of fossil fuels? I don't personally know myself. I do know we won't be able to put fossil fuels into our gas tanks for much longer whether we want to or not. Man is up against an energy challenge. Another energy challenge man is up against is the ability to produce enough electricity to recharge all those millions if not billions of battery automobiles continually on a broad scale. Those batteries will take material resources also.

I don't get what still? Maybe I'm an idiot then. I'm concerned about what the laws of nature will permit, not what politicians try to stifle. Man uses fossil fuels because nature put them in this planet and because of their seemingly unsurpassed level of energy density. Nature did not give us an endless supply of fossil fuels. I understand fossil fuels are finite. I understand that the sun will shine, rivers will flow, oceans will move, rain and snow will fall, corn will grow, draft animals will pull and the wind will blow for much longer than man will be able to continue to use fossil fuels and even nuclear power. I understand that man will only be able to use whatever nature provides, politics and big business notwithstanding. I hope man makes the most of whatever nature provides in a good way and not in bad ways. Man has to improvise, adapt and overcome. Fossil fuels will not fall from the sky like manna from heaven. You can't pray more of them into existence.

What were the other 40% powered by, steam?

I'm not casting doubt upon anything. I understand that EV's have not yet reached a level of advancement as many people desire. i appreciate that there are those trying to make them better and more practical. Even the gasoline automobile took a number of decades to reach a widely accepted level of practicality. I am interested in what those in disciplines of science and engineering say about the potential of EV's. EV's and gasoline vehicles both are governed by laws of physics. Nature ultimately has limits on what man can do.

It is a water or gravity powered railroad? Is gravity itself a form of energy?

Yes, sir. Very so much. Thank you. ENERGY Physics. the capacity to do work; the property of a system that diminishes when the system does work on any other system, by an amount equal to the work so done ENERGY Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com WORK Physics. force times the distance through which it acts; specifically, the transference of energy equal to the product of the component of a force that acts in the direction of the motion of the point of application of the force and the distance through which the point of application moves. WORK Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com I like to think of ENERGY as the capacity for material changes (as the form, shape, size, composition, color or temperature of a mass, and the velocity, acceleration or deceleration of a mass) to occur in the universe. An automobile must consume energy if it moves from one position on earth to another under its own power because there are changes in the car's relative position and changes in velocity (transition from a still position to a state of being in motion for a certain amount of time and distance and vice-versa) in order to make such a move. A car is basically and inert hunk of metal until the internal combustion and mechanical process take hold. Such travel of the car in question might be deemed a unit of work. While the Earth revolves in orbit about the sun, is any energy being consumed in that action alone? is any work being accomplished from mere planetary movement in our solar system?

Is chemistry the best scientific discipline for a person interested in a renewable energy career that is technically oriented? I have a special interest in emerging renewable energy technologies and advancing wide-spread human uses of renewable energy in various forms including ocean wave generated electricity. I have a special interest in eliminating man's dependency upon fossil fuels and other finite forms of energy such as nuclear power as soon as possible. I enjoy breathing clean air and having clean water to drink, fish in, swim in, dive in and go boating in. I have a keen interest in the emergence of the world's most advanced battery-rechargeable automobiles, trucks, buses, motorboats, vans and SUV's that are both fire-safe and practical to operate on public roads (and waterways) and I particularly admire Toyota's solid state battery project now in the works. There is a big concern in the consumer car-buying market about the limited range and load capacity of a plug-in EV operating on conventional rechargeable batteries for automotive use, including light-duty trucks that are often asked to tow trailers long distances, and of the fire dangers of conventional Lithium-Ion batteries. A practical plug-in EV full-size pickup truck, in theory, would be able to travel at least as far and as fast under maximum trailer load conditions and in the harshest of weather conditions on a single charge as any comparable gasoline or diesel truck could do on a tankful of fossil fuel. Perhaps solid-state batteries will one day have at least as much energy density as do petroleum-based fuels. It takes so many calories to do so much work over a given amount of time. If I could drive a full-size plug-in pickup truck at least 400 miles at Interstate speeds on a full charge with a travel trailer in tow, I would be indeed one happy camper. The question is how much would the electricity from a recharging station along the way cost me out of pocket to fully recharge that wonderful plug-in EV truck vs the cost to refuel a comparable fossil-fuels-powered truck after making a similar travel trailer trip? A prudent buyer has to consider both practicality and economics when shopping for a vehicle. Besides chemistry, what other scientific disciplines are applied to the field of renewable energy? Physics? Ecology?

That is a very closed-minded attitude. Even Dr. Carl Sagan once said he could not prove of disprove the existence of God. The bottom line is only time will tell as to what the hand of fate shall ultimately dish out. Perhaps living people should strive to live as if their current life is the only one they shall ever have. But I have no crystal ball. I personally feel that not only is the hereafter even possible, it is quite probable in my mind.

That is the most honest answer in many cases? Will I ever experience consciousness beyond physical death? You know the answer to that question as much about that as I do. Nature holds many secrets from the minds of men.

For any change to have happened, something had to have caused the said change in the first place. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. How did motion arise from a total static state of all existence?

Was there ever a time motion DID NOT exist anywhere?