DougCounty (Ken Lassman)

Follow

Comment history

Kansas making new guidelines for handling wildlife pets

Seems to be very poorly handled indeed. I don't buy the pat answer that moving it would have created a problem with other neighbors since the National Grasslands are around an hour away and it could have been released there. According to the KS Dept. of Wildlife and Parks website, there have been zero deer reported with CWD in Grant County or any of the 6 counties in the SW corner of the state as of June 2016 http://ksoutdoors.com/Hunting/Big-Gam... And how many deer were harvested during hunting season in those 6 counties?

Seems like no alternatives were even discussed with the family, and even worse, no time provided for the family to come to terms with this outcome if it truly was the only viable option. Considering the low risk for CWD, they could have been told to stop feeding it and given a chance to see if it would drift away on its own. Hauling it off to the National Grasslands would have been an alternative it seems, but it holds a miniscule chance of spreading CWD through this deer since no test has been developed to check for CWD in live deer. Seems that developing this test should be a high priority for wildlife biologists since it would greatly enhance our ability to monitor this potentially dangerous disease.

January 16, 2017 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas election officials threw out thousands of ballots

Proof that Kobach is more interested in ferreting out voters who shouldn't have voted (last count: 3?) compared to helping improperly disinfranchised voters who were not allowed to vote (thousands?). Kansans should stand up and say loud and clear that while both are important, throwing out legitimate voters votes threatens democracy and should not be tolerated. If you cannot fix the kinks in the system, then step aside and let someone else in who can.

January 16, 2017 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU’s $78.5 million EEEC designed to foster modern geology, petroleum engineering study

Sounds beautiful and functional; a rare combination these days. I hope they designed all those bridges, tunnels, glass atria and the like with earthquakes in mind. Building such a complex set of structures on the side of a hill could present some unique challenges in our injection-well induced shaky world.

January 15, 2017 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence's Sen. Francisco reframing the gun debate

Marc, I propose elevating the level of the discussions then. I assume that anyone who is really interested in getting the fuller picture of an admittedly complex topic as this might have done a little digging themselves to answer such questions. I have certainly looked up answers to questions posed to me before if I really feel like the person asking is engaged and has an open mind about the topic. As a fellow citizen, I expect the same of others as I do myself: to do my homework and share my findings so that the discussion can actually lead to a better understanding of the issue at hand and not just a yelling match where little else other than insults and exaggerations are exchanged. The latter is just plain boring and suppresses understanding and should be called out as such whenever possible if we as a country expect to address the many issues that face us.

I, too, do not know the answers to those questions which is precisely why I asked them, since their answers are actually important to developing a sensible response to gun violence. I encourage you to keep your ears open on this and report back anything you find out and I promise to do the same.

January 12, 2017 at 1:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Please note: We are not the enemy

Bob,

To paraphrase the illustrious Inigo Montoya regarding your use of the word "empirical:"

" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

I am happy to stand behind the references I've provided in matters of substance in my posts, and have been happy to entertain any countervailing evidence to the contrary that you could have provided honestly challenging that empirically based evidence, which, coincidentally has never occurred. If you think otherwise, then by all means bring up the evidence!

I would also be happy to provide empirical evidence that your "terse and pithy" posts amount primarily to attacks on Democrats, attacks on other posters, or sarcastic comments about the topic at hand that provide little real insight to move the conversation ahead.

Of course you choose to do that, just as I make the questionable choice to respond to those posts. But your calling into question the veracity of empirical evidence that I reference is demonstrably baseless.

January 12, 2017 at 8:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Please note: We are not the enemy

I've found a general negative tropism behavior from Bob: turn on the light and he scurries for cover. Could this be genetically based? I'll leave that alone, of course.

January 11, 2017 at 11:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Please note: We are not the enemy

And once again, you go for name calling and negative labelling instead of going for true dialogue. You're a congenital whiner, I guess. And don't call that name calling: I have plenty of empirical evidence to back up my observation.

January 10, 2017 at 10:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence's Sen. Francisco reframing the gun debate

Bob, your opinion is certainly a legitimate opinion. So far you have asked me to look it up if I want, but you yourself have no interest in digging up some real information and continue to surround yourself with the flavor of anecdotes that you find sweetest.

Once again, you are entitled to do that, but your comments have no other substance to them. Thanks for the clarifying your lack of interest in actually learning something, and to anyone else out there, I'd love to actually see an impartial and accurate range of responses that are actually REPRESENTATIVE of what is actually happening when active shooters, concealed carry and law enforcement are mixed together, or even just active shooters and registered concealed and carry individuals.

Andrew, your protocol for law enforcement to use is actually useful, if it is truly accurate, which I have no reason to doubt, though a citation would be helpful. A citation might actually provide some clearer picture as to how the dynamics are playing out. Another question I'd like to find out is how many accidental discharges and/or misunderstandings occur. Of course this gets into a gray area that is more susceptible to interpretation, but I think it would be at least worth considering.

Bottom line: the CDC needs to be given more free rein to do legitimate studies of the dynamics of gun violence, and this emerging new area provides yet another reason to add to the list as to why politicians should step out of the way and let this very important health issue be studied more objectively.

January 10, 2017 at 3:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence's Sen. Francisco reframing the gun debate

I have a few honest questions, seeking honest answers, including "I don't really know."

Suppose an active shooter shows up on the KU campus and there are a couple of concealed carrying students and gunfire begins to be exchanged between the active shooter and the armed student(s). Armed law enforcement arrives and I suspect their first duty is to take out any and all active shooters, correct?

So among those of you registered concealed carriers, how do you calculate into your survival strategies the reality that your protection also greatly increases your chances of becoming a target? Does anyone know the number of registered concealed carry folks who actually get involved in a gunfight and who are also injured/killed as a result?

I guess what I'm saying is that it would be good to get beyond anecdotes and look at the actual number of thwarted firearm assaults coming from registered concealed carry individuals and also their injury/fatality rates. Everyone can tell you a story but what are the actual numbers? Seems that this would be a useful thing to know before deciding either way before deciding to embark on such a potentially dangerous/beneficial policy. As part of the social contract, it is our duty not to eliminate risk and in an individual incident, the statistics don't mean anything, but when a state chooses a policy, the numbers and probability DO matter. Seems it's up to both sides to figure out to the best of our ability what those numbers and probabilities are, and revisit those numbers to adjust if necessary if we find out that it's not working out like we thought it would.

January 10, 2017 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: Please note: We are not the enemy

David, then your're part of the problem if you don't think those who voted against a candidate can't support them when they have a good idea. Democracy is not about jostling for position so you can shove as much down the throats of the other guys as you can before they get a chance to do the same to you. Democracy is about acknowledging the pluralistic nature of our country, providing opportunities for everyone to play together as much as they can in the best common ground we can create, plus provide protections for our diversity to flower without persecution from others as long as those individual and/or private freedoms don't stomp on others.

Trump's insults, bullying language and lies not only cross the line of respect needed in a pluralistic society, it encourages others to do the same. In case you missed it, that's the main point of the columnist's essay. Holding Trump accountable for his excesses and incivility is the opposite of throwing bombs: it's legitimate journalism, it always has been and always will be if we have any hope of moving ahead as one country, albeit one with a wide range of cultures, values, religions, political persuasions, and so forth. That, in my opinion is what makes America the most interesting experiment of them all and why the rest of the world looks to us for inspiration.

January 9, 2017 at 10:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous