I'm pretty wigged out by spiders, but I like snakes. So for me, I tried to mentally convert this video into a snake expert "handling" a cobra or something. The way I see it, sure, you can have an expertise level and skill level that would allow you to handle either sort of animal relatively safely. But even in that case, there aren't a whole lot of particularly practical reasons to put that into practice.

My hometown in Kansas has lots of bullsnakes. In my experience, large older bullsnakes are often pretty docile but the young juvenile ones are usually very defensive and will rear up, strike, and mimic rattlesnake sounds and actions. However, they are non-venomous and don't have "fangs", although they do have short teeth that can provide small, shallow puncture wounds if they get a good nip on you.

I like catching bullsnakes when I see them and handling them a bit before releasing them back into the wild. The docile ones are particularly fun, but even the juveniles that show some aggression can be fun to handle with some caution. I have never been bit myself, but I have seen people that have been. No lasting harm comes from that, and in most instances it wouldn't even draw blood -- the surprise of it is probably worse than the damage.

In spite of that, I have no interest whatsoever in handling something like a rattlesnake or other venomous snake. Looking at them, sure. But I don't see much practicality in handling them. In all likelihood, I could safely handle rattlers in the same way that I handle bullsnakes and avoid being bit. But the cost of failure would be higher (lots of pain and small possibility of death).

So at least for me personally, I don't think I'd be interested in handling black widows even if I was a spider person instead of a snake person. I'm not against the author of this video handling them, but I would stop short of the "you should try this at home" tag!

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@shinyblurry
Thank you sooo much for taking over the whole thread--again.
This behavior is the reason I think you should be banned.
Anyone dares to post anything you disagree with will have their thread hijacked.
Take it to the profile pages for those who want to argue with a zealot.
<div id="widget_865170862"><script src="http://videosift.com/widget.js?video=205715&width=500&comments=15&minimized=1" type="text/javascript"></script></div>


It takes more than one person to have a proper conversation.

as well this is not your baby, you post a video and its let loose into the wild and anyone can say whatever as long as it is not "breaking the rules"

I like turtles

I had a plain old cheese sandwich for dinner.

You ignore me extremely well, do it to him as well.

oh and

" chill out "

>> ^Yogi:

How do you not plan how much gas you're going to need? I refuse to watch this movie that will possibly contain the answer...someone must tell me the answer and THEN I'll watch the movie.

"It seems some MMA websites have reported on the story, posting up that I might die out in the desert, or that it might be my greatest opponent yet, etc. Come on, guys. It's really common down in Southern California to go out to the off-road recreation areas in the desert about an hour away from LA and San Diego.

So my plan is to go out to the desert, do some camping, ride the motorcycle, and shoot some guns. Sounds like a lot of fun to me. A lot of people do it. This isn't a version of 'Into the Wild.'" -Evan Tanner

"I plan on going so deep into the desert, that any failure of my equipment, could cost me my life. I've been doing a great deal of research and study. I want to know all I can about where I'm going, and I want to make sure I have the best equipment."

>> ^robbersdog49:

From wiki:
"The Sanctuary accommodates mostly orphaned and injured animals that cannot be released safely back into the wild."

Yes, I suspected they might be on sanctuary but without being sure I decided not to say.

From wiki:

"The Sanctuary accommodates mostly orphaned and injured animals that cannot be released safely back into the wild."

These animals aren't going to be harmed by being habitualised, as they aren't going to be released into the wild again. It's clearly not a wild situation, Cheetahs just don't gather in groups like that naturally. This is in their reserve and these are animals that will benefit from being tamed.

It may not be entirely true, but I was always under the impression that internal affairs was there to investigate misconduct and that the majority of the police force really was at arms length with people from internal affairs. Might just be TV/movies corrupting my view.

But there have also been cases where other districts will investigate sensitive matters to remove any chance of favoritism when involving members of a police force. I mean they have to trust someone at some point, so why not another police force?

Then if it's really serious, corruption, murder, etc...feds usually do the investigation or at least participate in the decisions being made.

And then when it comes to trial, they've been known to hold trials in other districts because the public outrage is too high in the district where it happened so they couldn't find an untainted jury pool.

I say as long as you have someone whose fairly impartial making the decisions that decide whether someone else should investigate or not..or trial should be held elsewhere for impartiality, etc....you're doing the best you can hope to do given the sheer amount of people involved. You can't possibly look into every person to look for possible ties and therefore possible influences to their bias.

The only issue is, we have a justice system that strives to the minimum in actually rehabilitating people. They go no further than what it takes to bring someone into court, hear a trial even if it's there's evidence that they should be considering being left out, make a verdict and let the person loose again.....when there's something clearly wrong that could be fixed NOW to prevent problems later. Medical holds for treatment, mandatory state funded counseling, etc. In fact in my state, most of these extra facilities have been shut down and the people being helped by them have been released into the wild to repeat the process all over again....except in the end it's jail or being let go to repeat it yet again.

If the system only options weren't confinement or restricted movement, they might find the population a happier bunch.....

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^Matthu:
Uh, yes there is... They can hand over the investigation to an impartial 3rd party who doesn't have a conflict of interest.

Sounds easy. A few questions though.
Who decides which 3rd party handles the investigation? The cops? The people making the accusation? This impartial 3rd party itself?
How is it funded? Does it get subpoena powers? Can it get warrants from judges? For that matter, can they investigate judges too? Politicians? Corporations? Your neighbors?
Are the police supposed to voluntarily comply with the recommendations? How does this help if all it can do is give toothless recommendations? Or is this supposed to be a compulsory thing? If it's compulsory, how do they compel the police? Do politicians grant them legal authority of some sort?
Is there any way for the officers to contest any of the findings? To appeal any of the decisions?
Who investigates the 3rd party if there are reports of corruption in how it operates? Can't be the police -- that'd be a conflict of interest. Do we need a 4th party to police the 3rd? A 5th to keep an eye on the 4th?

[redacted]

>> ^Mcboinkens:
>> ^Sagemind:
Happy Fox is Happy...
Cute fox is cute...
Happy sounds sound Happy...
But
A wild animal is a wild animal.
By treating this fox like a pet, they are ensuring that it will never be able to be released back into the wild. An animal with that kind of affection for humans is bound to get itself into trouble (and ultimately killed).
All animals were "wild" once. If this fox was raised from birth in this household, it is no different than a dog, really. I'm sure it has more anti-human instincts or something like that, but I don't really see that in this video. Obviously the owner doesn't have a problem with it, and although it doesn't seem right to me, it's their choice to keep it around.


Says the person who doesn't know what Darwin and evolution are. Sure...it took thousands of years to domesticate other animals. Why shouldn't it take just one year to domesticate a fox?

Take it from someone who owns a Chaussie cat (half wild and half domestic cat), Sagemind is correct, a wild animal is a wild animal. You may be able to temper their behavior but never truly domesticate....just ask Siegfried and Roy.

[redacted]

Happy Fox is Happy...
Cute fox is cute...
Happy sounds sound Happy...

But
A wild animal is a wild animal.
By treating this fox like a pet, they are ensuring that it will never be able to be released back into the wild. An animal with that kind of affection for humans is bound to get itself into trouble (and ultimately killed).

So what now, does it have to spend the rest of its life in the cage. Could it be tame enough to live as a pet in a home. Red foxes are predators that instinctively hunt birds, small game and animals as large as sheep. goats and small calves. It is doubtful it could be trusted around small children and definitely not other pets.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fox

"In recent years, an escalating interest in exotic pets has drawn attention to the red fox. While the fox is a beautiful animal, people should remember that they are wild animals. Due to the fox's excitable and nervous nature, a fox makes a very unruly pet. If this knowledge is not enough to discourage attempts to make pets of foxes, people should also know that foxes have a very strong odor to their bodies and their waste, much like that of a skunk." - http://www3.northern.edu/natsource/MAMMALS/Redfox1.htm

Why haven't they turned into the Wild West?!

@arvana
And yet...on the About Peepoople page, they say this
"The company was founded in 2006 and is based in Stockholm, Sweden."
And this, "The Peepoo toilet is scheduled to be available for delivery in the third trimester of 2010."

I'm not saying it's a scam, but based on the website, it's not actually in production, and several claims struck me as a bit overblown, and self-conflicting.

How much are they going to sell for? I could find no actual numbers about that, just claims that it would be affordable even to the poorest. If someone's making only a few dollars a month, these would have to run around 10 for a penny to be affordable. Somehow I don't see that price being sustainable.

How long does it take to sanitize? In one spot, it says 2-4 weeks, but another says 1-2 years. Probably just a case of a web designer not knowing the material, but still...it doesn't inspire my confidence. I assume that puncturing the bag in less time than whatever-it-takes would release the unsanitized contents into the wild...but didn't see anything addressing that (and to be fair, that's still a lesser problem than the current nothing-at-all solution).

And the sanitizing process is just to add urea? It seems odd that adding a few grams of what's already in urine is enough to sanitize it. I wouldn't call it wrong, but it just seems weird, like saying that adding more yeast to a salty bread would make it sweet.

What I'd like to see is a total cost comparison to a more infrastructure based solution. I suspect that septic tank based toilets would probably be cheaper and more effective over the long run.

Damned stupid quoting system!!!
I guess we'll just have to do without quotes.

yeah! finally made it into the wild!

They need to start releasing more Salmon fry into the wild, numbers never before seen, and then quit the farms. Humans toying with nature (farming them) is the cause of the lice problem - or so I hear!

When sharks, crocodiles and tigers start taking an interest in the humane killing of humans for food, I will take an interest in the treatment of chickens. Granted, humans aren't often on the menu...but still.

I'm pretty sure if we took away all factory farming and I had to go out into the wild to hunt my own meat, the impaling arrows I use to kill chickens will somehow not cause less pain then the grinder or de-beaker and the spear or knife I use to kill larger game will increase the animal's stress level significantly more than a quick spike in the brain.

Some people live in a fantasy world where nature is not cruel and we are somehow not a product of nature. I guess it's easy to get confused when your meat comes prepackaged in neat foam containers and you have the luxury of sitting comfortably while demonizing the people who created it for you.

My body needs meat and if I had to jump on the animals back and rip it's throat out with my teeth...well, I'd just buy more dental floss.