9 ms·

I'd have to defer to your experience, but fire-and-forget cyanide bombs seem a bit radical and dangerous as "solutions" go... I'd rather pay someone that can h

I'd have to defer to your experience, but fire-and-forget cyanide bombs seem a bit radical and dangerous as "solutions" go... I'd rather pay someone that can handle a rifle to hunt whatever needs killing -- as opposed to the cyanide bomb method that could (as outlined in the article) do more harm than good.

Icathian 6y ago
Ideally you'd be completely right. A professional with a rifle is far safer with less chance for unintended consequences (even if the chances are low regardless). Also incredibly expensive compared to what amounts to a spring-loaded poison trap (someone else in this thread linked the actual manual for the thing). Given that nobody wants to pay what it'd cost to do invasive/native species control with a fleet of professionals shooting things one at a time (even for species where that's theoretically an option), worse alternatives are often used.
- mlyle 6y ago
  You seem to intuit that the risk/benefit is rather low. I'm not sure I agree: it seems like a sure thing that this program will eventually kill someone. It's not exactly evident that the efficacy of the program is high. Even if the program is effective at control, it doesn't leap out at me that the attained benefit surpasses the risks and costs.