So how do I kill off a heron thats eating my koi

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
Köi-Lö wrote:

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...


So maybe we have got, through sensible discussion, to the point that in
a commercial or large lake environment maybe shooting/killing is the
best option...on a smaller scale then the sculptures, sprays, nets and
fences will be the best option but it isn't the way to go on a large
scale environment....


This may be true but I have seen some large breeding establishments
netted. They don't care what it looks like as the fish and the
environment are what's most important. We chose the nets rather then
having to constantly watch the ponds to chase away the predators, or to
kill them. Killing the herons will do nothing for other predators you
have in rural areas here in the USA.

I think that point is academic....you cannot net a loch or lake that is
many acres in size....

This is true. Not all the lakes they raise them in here are huge though.

appearance in these sort of applications are not
really an issue...the commercial raising of fish either Koi for resale or
trout for human consumption is lucrative......Yes you can watch a "small
pond" but not something on a larger scale....

I assure you you cannot watch a small pond either. You would go batty or
have to hire someone to sit there almost 24/7. :-) It just takes one trip
to the bathroom or the store for the local heron or water snake to gobble up
your best koi. Huge fish farms can afford to hire cheap labor to guard
their ponds. The rest of us don't have that option. Plus you shoot one and
another will almost immediately take it's place. We use to have 2 at the
ponds, one on the roof, one in a tree...... I kid you not! It was either
nets or give up on fish. And you already know we also had snapper turtles,
water shakes and huge bullfrogs to contend with.

That would be up to the moderators. If someone don't like someone else's
post they can ignore it and not reply. Or if the moderator can see it's
clearly designed to make people angry, they can refuse to pass it. Where
to draw the line - I have no idea.


Sometimes being contraversial and in fact posting something you don't
necessarily hold as an opinion opens the world up to healthy debate.

But too many times these debates degenerate into *personal* attacks or nasty
snipes at someone.

I
could post that I believe that fish fry are a valid food source for my
other fish and get flamed but it opens a debate as to how we see
this.....and it becomes an interesting on topic discussion....I might be
seen as being provoctive in saying this but I can always reserve the right
of playing devil's advocate in getting a healthy debate going....sometimes
doing this is good and it gets us all to examine our beliefs and
attitudes...

I agree.... but some NGs have those who can't control themselves and it
degenerates as mentioned above. They just have to go for someone's throat.

..I don't see in anyway that a moderated group
should lead to a supression of this sort of discussion - because it is
very valid and a dilemma that faces any type of fishkeeper....get rid of
the predator or sacrifice the fish - ever seen an angel with mollie
fry???? Ever seen a heron steal a prize fish????

YES! My own! Several hundred dollars worth before we netted the ponds.

where do we actually
draw our moral line.....discussing it is great and I am pleased that the
topic has been brought up...

It will be even better once the personal attacks are stopped and or
removed as I'm sure you would agree. ;-) Also, if those who constantly
harass and troll me are forced to keep one NYM, they can be killfiled.

I guess the whole thing is about everyone keeping one nym.....and a valid
reply to address....personal attacks will not happen on a moderated
group....and hey everyone can shift nyms and email addresses at the drop
of a hat as has been demonstrated by the mess on rec.ponds....you can all
also pretend to be one another....but the key really is where is the point
in playing these games if all you can do is post on topic?????

THERE YOU GO!!!!!!!!!!!! You got it lady! They're *all* stopped in their
tracks and the topic will be ponds again. :-)

yes, you can be traced but you can also filter and delete on your mail
application just the same way as you can on usenet...

You and several others know where my messages are coming from. You have my
legitimate ISP given e-mail address. Any of you can e-mail me any time you
want.
--
KL....
Frugal ponding since 1995.
rec.ponder since late 1996.
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://tinyurl.com/9do58
~~~~ }((((* ~~~ }{{{{(ö ~~~~ }((((({*

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

So maybe we have got, through sensible discussion, to the point that in a
commercial or large lake environment maybe shooting/killing is the best
option...on a smaller scale then the sculptures, sprays, nets and fences
will be the best option but it isn't the way to go on a large scale
environment....

I think this a great example of how moderation could kill a good
discussion or how good moderation can allow this type of post to get
through and generate an intelligent conversation.....it is to be hoped
that the moderators on the proposed rec.ponds.moderated can see that even
if a post starts off as being inflammatory it is still valid....and
sometimes I can see that playing devil's advocate by taking an unpopular
stance can provoke debate and discussion....this IMO is a good
thing....and actually the point that the OP wanted to prove/discuss/bring
out into the open...

I look forward to intelligent posts on this subject such as we are now
getting from all concerned....it gives me hope that this can continue....

Gill

There should be an option for moderators to return a submitted post to the
OP with the suggestion that inflammatory or abusive language be removed and
the post resubmitted.

If you use the argument that *any* post can contain a useful gem that some
reasonable person down the line will help to morph into useful information,
then we might as well have no moderation whatsoever.

On the other hand, good moderation should actually encourage discussion,
because then people will feel confident that they can discuss what interests
them - even if their views are seen as silly or impractical by some -
without being personally attacked, for no reason other than that the
attacker knows he/she can get away with it - in an unmoderated group.

That's just my opinion, and is something that should be brought up, both pro
and con, during the RFD.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

Gail Futoran wrote:



There should be an option for moderators to return a submitted post to the
OP with the suggestion that inflammatory or abusive language be removed and
the post resubmitted.

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

If you use the argument that *any* post can contain a useful gem that some
reasonable person down the line will help to morph into useful information,
then we might as well have no moderation whatsoever.

Not entirely what I was saying.....I guess what I am trying to say is
any "on-topic" post can generate an intelligent discussion - I'm
certainly not saying *any* post. Personally I would prefer it if a post
that deliberately sets out to inflame is returned to the submitter to
tone it down and ask the question in a way that would generate the
discussion....even if I strongly disagree with what is being
proposed...If a post is rejected subjectively (and without giving the OP
the opportunity to resubmit in acceptable language) then it would call
into question the neutral stance of the moderators - one example would
be whether bad advice should be moderated or not - OK there are times
when advice given is bad and this should be corrected on the newsgroup
by the posters - and moderators are also posters - and we also have to
understand that one person may feel the advice is bad but others will
have other experiences from following the same advice - healthy debate
without resorting to insults is exactly what a moderated group should be
about.


On the other hand, good moderation should actually encourage discussion,
because then people will feel confident that they can discuss what interests
them - even if their views are seen as silly or impractical by some -
without being personally attacked, for no reason other than that the
attacker knows he/she can get away with it - in an unmoderated group.

Agreed.....read this bit again after writing the above - I think we are
on the same wave length on this :-)

That's just my opinion, and is something that should be brought up, both pro
and con, during the RFD.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

It is good that there are people willing to dedicate their time (long
term) to this project and you all have my support in your efforts

Gill

Jayne Kulikauskas wrote:
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:33:07 +0000, Gill Passman wrote:


Exactly. Once the RFD is published, people will know exactly what
moderation policies and moderators are being proposed. At that time, I
recommend posing hypothetical questions to these moderators about how they
would deal with certain posts. You can either make posts up or find actual
posts. Not only does this help you understand how the proposed moderators
think, it gives them practice in making moderation decisions. The sort of
thing that "Tristan" has been posting will be quite useful for this
process. Thank you, Tristan. And thanks to you, Gill, for drawing
attention to this.


This IMO is an excellent idea.....

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...
Gail Futoran wrote:

There should be an option for moderators to return a submitted post to
the OP with the suggestion that inflammatory or abusive language be
removed and the post resubmitted.

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual what
they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting online
to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink posting
online, and I'd rather not do that.

If you use the argument that *any* post can contain a useful gem that
some reasonable person down the line will help to morph into useful
information, then we might as well have no moderation whatsoever.

Not entirely what I was saying.....I guess what I am trying to say is any
"on-topic" post can generate an intelligent discussion - I'm certainly not
saying *any* post. Personally I would prefer it if a post that
deliberately sets out to inflame is returned to the submitter to tone it
down and ask the question in a way that would generate the discussion....

Yes, that's my position, also.

even if I strongly disagree with what is being
proposed...If a post is rejected subjectively (and without giving the OP
the opportunity to resubmit in acceptable language) then it would call
into question the neutral stance of the moderators - one example would be
whether bad advice should be moderated or not -

Again, that's a topic that needs to be addressed in the RFD and discussed
until people are satisfied with the moderation guidelines.

OK there are times
when advice given is bad and this should be corrected on the newsgroup by
the posters - and moderators are also posters - and we also have to
understand that one person may feel the advice is bad but others will
have other experiences from following the same advice - healthy debate
without resorting to insults is exactly what a moderated group should be
about.

I agree. I probably have put it badly in other posts, resulting in the
erroneous charge that I was advocating moderator editing of others' posts,
but what I meant (and thought it was clear) was what you are saying.
Moderators are also posters, and if a moderator disagrees with something
someone posts, they should be able to post their opinion in a separate post.

On the other hand, good moderation should actually encourage discussion,
because then people will feel confident that they can discuss what
interests them - even if their views are seen as silly or impractical by
some - without being personally attacked, for no reason other than that
the attacker knows he/she can get away with it - in an unmoderated group.

Agreed.....read this bit again after writing the above - I think we are on
the same wave length on this :-)

Probably.

That's just my opinion, and is something that should be brought up, both
pro and con, during the RFD.

Gail
rec.ponder since April 2003

It is good that there are people willing to dedicate their time (long
term) to this project and you all have my support in your efforts

Gill

My very tired eyes thank you.

Gail

Gail Futoran wrote:


I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual what
they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting online
to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink posting
online, and I'd rather not do that.


As you can see I also use a munged address to post and for the exact
same reasons as you - in the main it works - occassionally I take a look
on the pop3 server to see what gets sent to this address and it is quite
horrendous....but on the otherhand the Moderators need to be able to
return a post to someone for editing if deemed necessary so some sort of
policy on the use of real, munged (but decipherable) or fake email
addresses.....I suppose a contentious post that comes to the attention
of the moderators but without any traceable email would just have to be
removed without giving the poster the option of amendment....but it
would need to be clear in the charter that this would happen....then
those using fake addresses would know exactly where they stand and that
without a valid email address there could not be any appeal on a
moderated post....

Just wittering....role on the publication of the RFD :-)

Gill

Gail Futoran wrote:

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

Agreed....it also means that a poster needs to use a valid email
address....I guess if they make a contraversial post with a fake address
then the post would just remain removed - and so it should be.

Damn. I hadn't thought about that one. However,...

I use an invalid email address to post. It's obvious to any individual
what they need to do to send me email, but is that something we ought to
be
asking moderators to do? I don't know the answer. I do know that if I
can't use a munged (I think that's the term) email addy when posting
online to minimize spam in my inbox, then I'm going to have to rethink
posting online, and I'd rather not do that.

Not a problem, I think. If every email has to be valid (if they want
moderated posts returned) the software should be able to mung the email
addresses.
--
derek

I think this a great example of how moderation could kill a good
discussion or how good moderation can allow this type of post to get
through and generate an intelligent conversation.....

I know my fellow moderators want to go very light on the mod stuff. I had
to de-plonk some when I discovered this on-topic thread. ;-) I can't wait
to find one of those "magic" markers and start writing CULL on my fish for
the Kingfisher to know what to take. LOL!!!!! And yes, if I was being the
judge that would have gone thru, and I bet all the other mods would agree
w/me. ~ jan

pond w/culls

Locally we had a lady who was a birder. When she found out that heron would
come to backyard pond she was all about putting in a pond just for that
reason. Stocked with goldfish. I call this advance bird feeding, just like
when a hawk is sitting on my railing next to the bird feeders. ;-) ~ jan

~ janj wrote:
I think this a great example of how moderation could kill a good
discussion or how good moderation can allow this type of post to get
through and generate an intelligent conversation.....


I know my fellow moderators want to go very light on the mod stuff. I had
to de-plonk some when I discovered this on-topic thread. ;-) I can't wait
to find one of those "magic" markers and start writing CULL on my fish for
the Kingfisher to know what to take. LOL!!!!! And yes, if I was being the
judge that would have gone thru, and I bet all the other mods would agree
w/me. ~ jan


So maybe these are keywords that should be included in any moderation
policy - cull, kill, shoot, capture, rid myself of, dispose etc. etc.

Gill