Golfer charged for hitting hawk with golf shot

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 6, 2008, 6:46 pm

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id ... _article=1

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - PGA Tour golfer Tripp Isenhour was charged with killing a hawk on purpose with a golf shot because it was making noise as he videotaped a TV show

Isenhour was with a film crew for "Shoot Like A Pro" on Dec. 12 at the Grand Cypress Golf course. The 39-year-old golfer, whose real name is John Henry Isenhour III, was charged Monday with cruelty to animals and killing a migratory bird.

According to court documents, Isenhour got upset when a red-shouldered hawk began making noise, forcing another take. He began hitting balls at the bird, then 300 yards away, but gave up.

Isenhour started again when the hawk moved within about 75 yards, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officer Brian Baine indicated in a report.

Isenhour allegedly said "I'll get him now," and aimed for the hawk.

"About the sixth ball came very near the bird's head, and (Isenhour) was very excited that it was so close," Baine wrote.

A few shots later, witnesses said he hit the hawk. The bird, protected as a migratory species, fell to the ground bleeding from both nostrils.

Isenhour's agent, John Mascatello with SFX World Sports Management, did not immediately return an e-mail or telephone message Thursday.

"He just kept saying how he didn't think he could have hit it, which I think is a stupid thing for a PGA Tour golfer to say," said Jethro Senger, a sound engineer at the shoot. "He can put a ball in a hole from hundreds of yards away, and here he is hitting line drives at something that's, I don't know, a couple hundred feet away?"

Senger said it was "basically like a joke to (Isenhour)." He said no one in the roughly 15-person crew intervened, and many later regretted it.

"It was one of those cases where there's some trepidation on whether or not they should speak up and do something," Senger said.

Senger said the killing was not captured on video. The bird was buried at the golf course and later dug up by Florida investigators.

Isenhour, of Salisbury, N.C., turned pro in 1990. He had two wins on the Nationwide Tour in 2006.

It's a shame and all that the bird died, but... really?... Investigators had to go dig up the bird, and this guys career and image need to be traipsed through the mud and the legal system because of a bird? I don't give a flying shit if it's a protected species as it certainly didn't have a fucking sign over it's head, and for christs sake its a fucking bird! Since it was too fucking stupid to move after he'd almost hit it and taken a bunch of shots at it, I say you leave it where it fell and call it a day...

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 6, 2008, 7:05 pm

Bird 'explodes' after flying in path of fastball

ESPN.com news services

TUCSON, Ariz. – Randy Johnson does have a killer fastball.

A groundskeeper at Tucson Electric Park picks up what's left of a dove that was hit and killed by a Randy Johnson fastball.

During the seventh inning of the Diamondbacks' split-squad 10-6 victory against the Giants on Saturday, the NL Cy Young winner hit and killed a dove flying in front of home plate.

Johnson's pitch to the Giants' Calvin Murray was about three-fourths of the way to home plate when it struck the bird.

The bird flew over catcher Rod Barajas' head and landed a few feet from the plate amid a sea of feathers.

"I'm sitting there waiting for it, and I'm expecting to catch the thing, and all you see is an explosion," Barajas said. "It's crazy. There's still feathers down there."

Giants second baseman Jeff Kent picked up the dead bird with his bare hands and jokingly pointed toward Johnson before taking it to the dugout.

Johnson was not amused by the incident.

"I didn't think it was all that funny," he said.

On Aug. 4, 1983, Yankees outfielder Dave Winfield killed a seagull in Toronto with a warmup throw. The Ontario police charged him with animal cruelty, although the charge was later dropped.

"This was a little more dramatic," Arizona manager Bob Brenly said. "I can honestly say I have never seen that before."

http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2001/0325/1161522.html

Birds and sports just dont mix.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 6, 2008, 7:15 pm

Fash wrote:It's a shame and all that the bird died, but... really?... Investigators had to go dig up the bird, and this guys career and image need to be traipsed through the mud and the legal system because of a bird? I don't give a flying shit if it's a protected species as it certainly didn't have a fucking sign over it's head, and for christs sake its a fucking bird! Since it was too fucking stupid to move after he'd almost hit it and taken a bunch of shots at it, I say you leave it where it fell and call it a day...

You're no friend of nature...

The point remains: It's a protected animal and he did it on purpose. Do the crime do the time. I have no sympathy for that idiot. What's the difference if it's a bird, a dog, a dolphin or a manatee? The law is the law.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2008, 7:56 pm

The point remains the same........IT'S A FUCKING BIRD!!!

It shouldn't be protected in the first place.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 6, 2008, 7:57 pm

The point remains the same... It is protected.

Whether you think it should be or not really isn't the issue.

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 6, 2008, 7:59 pm

Animal cruelty. It seems to be a theme these days. There are laws against this sort of thing for a reason... what a dipshit and it is a shame that a hawk had to die because it had annoyed some asshat golfer.

Post by **Sylvus** » March 6, 2008, 8:02 pm

Fash wrote:It's a shame and all that the bird died, but... really?... Investigators had to go dig up the bird, and this guys career and image need to be traipsed through the mud and the legal system because of a bird? I don't give a flying shit if it's a protected species as it certainly didn't have a fucking sign over it's head, and for christs sake its a fucking bird! Since it was too fucking stupid to move after he'd almost hit it and taken a bunch of shots at it, I say you leave it where it fell and call it a day...

Do you think it's cool for someone to pull out a shotgun and shoot a protected bird? What if it's just a bird (unprotected) to your knowledge, and you're on a golf course? I might feel it was unjust to get him in trouble if he hit a ball in its direction to try and scare it off and killed it on a fluke shot, but to be a professional golfer and shoot multiple balls at it, and then at least 6 more when it moves closer, that seems a little excessive to me. I don't know how much you know about birds, I admittedly do not know a whole lot, but I know enough to avoid intentionally killing a hawk as there are plenty of birds the size of a hawk that are protected. Why not just get your caddy to run over there and scare it away...

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 6, 2008, 8:21 pm

You don't go around hitting golf balls towards animals on purpose. You just don't do things like that.

As a punishment, this guy should have to pick up the golf balls on a driving range without any type of protection, while other golfers try to hit him with golf balls. If he dies, oh well, he's just a fucking human!

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 6, 2008, 8:44 pm

Spang wrote:As a punishment, this guy should have to pick up the golf balls on a driving range without any type of protection, while other golfers try to hit him with golf balls. If he dies, oh well, he's just a fucking human!

The best part being I don't think he should be a protected species! Golfers that is. They deserve the electric chair!

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 6, 2008, 9:32 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Spang wrote:As a punishment, this guy should have to pick up the golf balls on a driving range without any type of protection, while other golfers try to hit him with golf balls. If he dies, oh well, he's just a fucking human!
The best part being I don't think he should be a protected species! Golfers that is. They deserve the electric chair!

And there it is. Birds are more important than any person.

I think the guy was a putz, and should get slapped with a nice fine for his idiotic behavior. I also believe however, that we should realize, we humans and our well beeing shouldnt be put behind a spotted gulf finch breeding ground in importance.

Daboohk · Post by **Daboohk** » March 6, 2008, 10:08 pm

Humans (being the most intelligent beings on Earth) have the responsibility to help and protect animals simply because we are capable of doing so.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 6, 2008, 11:19 pm

Fash wrote:I don't give a flying shit if it's a protected species

Which is exactly what's wrong with this planet.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 6, 2008, 11:21 pm

Aslanna wrote:The point remains the same... It is protected.

Whether you think it should be or not really isn't the issue.

Where do you stand on Marijuana again?

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 6, 2008, 11:35 pm

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 7, 2008, 12:29 am

Mid wrote:Where do you stand on Marijuana again?

Where do you stand on marijuana again? Any inconsistency here is a two-way street.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » March 7, 2008, 12:45 am

Daboohk wrote:Humans (being the most intelligent beings on Earth) have the responsibility to help and protect animals simply because we are capable of doing so.

I beg to differ. That bird was more intelligent than midnyte, and it was a dumb fucking bird.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 7, 2008, 1:03 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Where do you stand on Marijuana again?

I stand on the position that marijuana is not a protected animal. If you want to hit golf balls at it by all means be my guest.

Spang · Post by **Spang** » March 7, 2008, 1:13 am

I laughed in real life.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 4:35 am

Aslanna wrote:I stand on the position that marijuana is not a protected animal. If you want to hit golf balls at it by all means be my guest.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 7, 2008, 9:37 am

Aslanna wrote:
Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Where do you stand on Marijuana again?
I stand on the position that marijuana is not a protected animal. If you want to hit golf balls at it by all means be my guest.

haha

Avoiding the question I guess.

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 7, 2008, 9:39 am

Sueven wrote:
Mid wrote:Where do you stand on Marijuana again?
Where do you stand on marijuana again? Any inconsistency here is a two-way street.

I'm not a fan of marijuana, mostly because it is illegal. However, I don't care enough either way to get all in a tizzy. Same with the bird thing. Never thought killing animals was a cool thing, but I also don't think it's that big of a deal. We have bigger birds to hit with golf balls.

Fairweather Pure · Post by **Fairweather Pure** » March 7, 2008, 9:48 am

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:Avoiding the question I guess.

Look below to see your response that brought up the topic. Who is avoiding the issue again?

Midnyte_Ragebringer wrote:
Aslanna wrote:The point remains the same... It is protected.

Whether you think it should be or not really isn't the issue.
Where do you stand on Marijuana again?

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 7, 2008, 3:46 pm

Who gives a fuck about a golfer who kills birds? As usual and unsurprisingly, its the same bunch of typical VV miscreants who mistakenly think they have a leg to stand in the "pro animal cruelty" camp.

Siji · Post by **Siji** » March 7, 2008, 3:58 pm

Nick wrote:Who gives a fuck about a golfer who kills birds? As usual and unsurprisingly, its the same bunch of typical VV miscreants who mistakenly think they have a leg to stand in the "pro animal cruelty" camp.

asphinctersayswha?

masteen · Post by **masteen** » March 7, 2008, 4:19 pm

Honestly, if animals bother you, shouldn't your career choice maybe not involve something that puts you in modified woodlands every day? The animals are part of the charm and character of a course.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 7, 2008, 4:54 pm

Nick wrote:Who gives a fuck about a golfer who kills birds? As usual and unsurprisingly, its the same bunch of typical VV miscreants who mistakenly think they have a leg to stand in the "pro animal cruelty" camp.

So you're saying we don't have a leg to stand on? So the laws protecting those birds means nothing? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 4:55 pm

He's on your side, that's what he's saying. He cares more about the bird than the golfer.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 7, 2008, 4:57 pm

Ah I must have read that wrong. In that case I support his position. And you don't have a leg to stand on!

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 7, 2008, 4:58 pm

The guy definitely has anger issues. Purposefully shooting balls at a bird is just a touch psychotic. However, how the hell would he know if the shelled at bird is considered "protected"? Cruelty is one thing, but trying to give an extra rap because it's protected seems a bit much.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 7, 2008, 4:59 pm

The important word missing my quickly typed diatribe was "on" as in "leg to stand on".

oops.

miir · Post by **miir** » March 7, 2008, 5:11 pm

They should stick him on a driving range (without a helmet) and allow animal rights activists to drive golfballs at his head... if he happens to be killed by one of those golf balls, the person who struck the ball should face the same cruelty to animals charges that 'Tripp' would have been charged with.

Sound fair?

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 5:12 pm

2 wrongs don't make a right. Punishing the golfer doesn't bring the bird back, and it's not like this happens all the time, so it's not going to deter anything either.

Post by **Sylvus** » March 7, 2008, 5:13 pm

Chidoro wrote:The guy definitely has anger issues. Purposefully shooting balls at a bird is just a touch psychotic. However, how the hell would he know if the shelled at bird is considered "protected"? Cruelty is one thing, but trying to give an extra rap because it's protected seems a bit much.

Isn't it a person's responsibility to know the law? Ignorance not being a defense, and so forth?

I don't know, maybe it isn't common knowledge, but I always thought that most big, predatory birds like that were protected. Peregrine Falcons, many other kinds of Eagles and Hawks, etc. Actually, now that I look, the list is quite long. Maybe it's just because I have a lot of family and friends who hunt (or aren't assholes), but I always thought it was common sense not to intentionally kill anything that you didn't have the appropriate permits/knowledge of the legality of killing said thing.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 7, 2008, 5:18 pm

Fash wrote:2 wrongs don't make a right. Punishing the golfer doesn't bring the bird back, and it's not like this happens all the time, so it's not going to deter anything either.

It's called enforcement of the law. Punishing someone who kills another person doesn't bring the person back either.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 5:31 pm

Aslanna wrote:
Fash wrote:2 wrongs don't make a right. Punishing the golfer doesn't bring the bird back, and it's not like this happens all the time, so it's not going to deter anything either.
It's called enforcement of the law. Punishing someone who kills another person doesn't bring the person back either.

You're right, but it is a deterrent.

I don't kill people because I don't like to harm anything (even animals).

A lot of people don't kill people because they'll get caught and go to jail. Sad but true.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 7, 2008, 5:41 pm

Fash wrote:Punishing the golfer doesn't bring the bird back

And enforcing anti-rape laws doesn't take back the rape, and enforcing anti-murder laws doesn't take back the murder, and enforcing anti-child porn laws doesn't unmake the child porn...

Fash wrote:and it's not like this happens all the time, so it's not going to deter anything either.

Wrong. This precise situation of a golfer killing a red-shouldered hawk with a drive is rare, sure. But the more general situation of conflict between humans and protected species is very common. It is PRECISELY the fact that the laws are enforced uniformly and stringently that allows them to be effective. If they were not enforced every time a plausible argument for nonenforcement could be made, they would be stripped of the substantial power that they have achieved.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 5:51 pm

Sueven wrote:And enforcing anti-rape laws doesn't take back the rape, and enforcing anti-murder laws doesn't take back the murder, and enforcing anti-child porn laws doesn't unmake the child porn...

You're right, but they are a deterrent.

I did mention both aspects (bringing back, and deterrant) so I don't understand why 2 of you decide to cherry pick the first one and attack it... Of course it sounds stupid if you don't include the followup.

Sueven wrote:Wrong. This precise situation of a golfer killing a red-shouldered hawk with a drive is rare, sure. But the more general situation of conflict between humans and protected species is very common.

My response to this is that perhaps they should not be protected. Species die. Despite what someone said earlier, it is not our responsibility to prolong other species.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » March 7, 2008, 5:57 pm

Sylvus wrote:
Chidoro wrote:The guy definitely has anger issues. Purposefully shooting balls at a bird is just a touch psychotic. However, how the hell would he know if the shelled at bird is considered "protected"? Cruelty is one thing, but trying to give an extra rap because it's protected seems a bit much.
Isn't it a person's responsibility to know the law? Ignorance not being a defense, and so forth?

I don't know, maybe it isn't common knowledge, but I always thought that most big, predatory birds like that were protected. Peregrine Falcons, many other kinds of Eagles and Hawks, etc. Actually, now that I look, the list is quite long. Maybe it's just because I have a lot of family and friends who hunt (or aren't assholes), but I always thought it was common sense not to intentionally kill anything that you didn't have the appropriate permits/knowledge of the legality of killing said thing.

Considering the length of the list, I can see your point. But before clicking on your hypertext I wouldn't have known there was anything special about nearly any bird. But again, that being said, the guy's a psycopath w/ anger issues and should be in trouble for trying to intentionally kill something they are unlicensed for I just don't think the extra rap of the bird's protected nature should come into play.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 7, 2008, 5:58 pm

Fash wrote:I did mention both aspects (bringing back, and deterrant) so I don't understand why 2 of you decide to cherry pick the first one and attack it... Of course it sounds stupid if you don't include the followup.

I assume I'm not included in this, as I directly responded to your deterrent point. In response to my claiming that enforcement in fact is a deterrent, you said:

Fash wrote:My response to this is that perhaps they should not be protected. Species die. Despite what someone said earlier, it is not our responsibility to prolong other species.

Essentially conceding the deterrent point.

So it seems like your last argument is that species protection is not a goal that we ought to be pursuing. The response to this is longer than I'm willing to type, so I'll just recommend that you do some reading into the history, purposes and effects of conservation legislation and other initiatives. It's pretty clear that you know next to nothing about the subject.

You might be surprised to see how much of the reasoning behind conservation has to do with helping humans, as opposed to helping other animals.

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 6:01 pm

You are included, your post made no reference to deterrence... I conceded no point, only explained my feelings on the issue.

I am certainly not well educated on conservation. Please tell me what the Red Shouldered Hawk provides to the eco-system that will not automatically regulate itself in its absence.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 7, 2008, 6:05 pm

Sueven wrote:But the more general situation of conflict between humans and protected species is very common. It is PRECISELY the fact that the laws are enforced uniformly and stringently that allows them to be effective. If they were not enforced every time a plausible argument for nonenforcement could be made, they would be stripped of the substantial power that they have achieved.

What the fuck is this about if not DETERRENCE?

Your question about the benefits of the red-shouldered hawk particularly displays a fundamental ignorance of the nature of ecosystems. Protecting only the species that we know to provide direct benefits is not a plausible method of conservation. Protecting species is a means to the end of protecting ecosystems.

So the direct response is: It's an integral part of the ecosystems on which we rely for our survival.

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 7, 2008, 6:05 pm

Anyone who's ever been near an ocean, knows seagulls are not endangered. But we protect them because they ate a bunch of crickets and saved some mormans in utah. Thats absolutely bullshit in my book, and poor Dave Winfield almost got tagged for accidentally killing one.

But I guess we're not discussing whether the laws are foolish or not, just that they are. So I'll wander off now.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 7, 2008, 6:09 pm

Fash wrote:I am certainly not well educated on conservation. Please tell me what the Red Shouldered Hawk provides to the eco-system that will not automatically regulate itself in its absence.

How is that even fucking relevant? Killing things for no reason is bad, moron.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » March 7, 2008, 6:11 pm

It's possible that they're protected by some other sort of regulation, but seagulls are not listed as endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act, which is the primary mechanism for species protection.

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/Species ... apstatus=1

Fash · Post by **Fash** » March 7, 2008, 6:13 pm

Nick wrote:How is that even fucking relevant? Killing things for no reason is bad, moron.

That's why I don't do it... But I don't fault people for hunting deer and the like (legal, but I still won't do it) or occasionally killing a bird (dumb ass birds that don't move when you almost hit them already, with a GOLF BALL FROM 75 YARDS)

Canelek · Post by **Canelek** » March 7, 2008, 6:18 pm

Incessant trolling, once again. You people are dumber than a bag of hair.

As for the incident. It is rather simple. No jail at all, that doesn't fit the crime. I would say a fit punishment is taking all fines/penalties and rolling them into a donation to the Humane Society and a certain number of hours (40-60) of community service focused on helping injured/abandoned animals.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » March 7, 2008, 6:18 pm

Flexing your fucking retarded sport golfpeen to kill a rare bird isn't an excusable act, why are you simply being contrary for the sake of trying to look cool?

Noysyrump · Post by **Noysyrump** » March 7, 2008, 6:28 pm

Killer of 189 gulls fined 14G, the minimum
By JULIE SHAW
Philadelphia Daily News

shawj@phillynews.com 215-854-2592

A judge yesterday found a South Philadelphia longshoreman guilty of killing 189 seagulls, but also said she found the defendant's testimony that "it was an accident" to be "quite credible."
She fined him the minimum penalty of $75 per bird, or $14,175 total.

Daniel Gallagher, 50, was also ordfered to pay $5,000 for damaging a company-owned Ford Ranger truck during the Feb. 18, 2006, incident at the Packer Avenue Marine Terminal in South Philly. He rammed into a truck chassis after hitting the birds about 7:15 that night.

A hefty man, Gallagher, dressed in a blue buttoned-down shirt and slacks, did not speak in court yesterday, but spoke briefly to reporters outside.

"It was like driving into a blizzard," he said after the hearing in the Community Court building at 1401 Arch St. as he stood next to his attorney, S. Philip Steinberg. "It happened within four seconds, and I tried to swerve away from 'em. . . . It was an accident."

Municipal Judge Deborah Shelton Griffin said in court that she found that Gallagher had violated the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code section that states " . . . it is unlawful for any person at any time to kill or attempt or conspire to kill . . . any protected birds . . . "

She noted that the law does not specify that the person has to act willfully to violate it.

Assistant District Attorney William James had asked the judge to punish Gallagher with the most serious fine - $200 per bird, or a total of $37,800.

This is a "very serious matter," James said, calling the killing of 189 birds "unprecedented" and saying "a message has to be sent."

In fining Gallagher the minimum amount, Griffin said that although she agreed it was a "very serious" matter, she also took into account Gallagher's testimony last week, which she found to be "quite credible."

Under Pennsylvania law, killing wildlife that is not classified as threatened or endangered is a summary offense.

At his 2 1/2-hour trial Sept. 10, Gallagher, who had worked at the Packer terminal since 1975, testified that he was at the end of a 12-hour shift that February night.

He was driving to the container office to hand in paperwork. He was holding a handset radio in one hand, and when he turned into the lot where the birds were, a cup of coffee left from the morning spilled in the truck, Steinberg said yesterday.

Then, the defense contended, the birds hit the truck and Gallagher panicked.

"He ran into birds and basically was covered like a blanket," Steinberg said. "He wasn't sure whether he hit the gas or the brakes. At some point, the blanket of birds cleared and he struck a back of a chassis of a tractor-trailer at a very high speed."

The prosecution contended that Gallagher had killed the birds intentionally. "These birds were down for the night," James said yesterday after the hearing. "They were asleep. They were helpless."

Kurt Ferry, director of security at the terminal, who stood with the prosecutor during yesterday's hearing, explained that the seagulls were roosting in an area of the lot where containers were usually parked. The gulls were not in the driving lane, he said.

James said: "There was no way [Gallagher] could not have seen these seagulls. It's a well-lit area.

"He drove for 200 feet through them, killing birds until finally, they took off. Probably then, he couldn't see, then slammed on his brakes and ran into a tractor-trailer chassis. That's the only sense it was an accident. He didn't intend to hit the chassis."

At trial, James presented about 30 photos, a videotape of seagulls strewn over 200 feet, and a seagull expert.

Gallagher reported the incident to a supervisor the same night. He later lost his job at the Packer Avenue terminal. However, as a union worker, he is still able to work at other facilities.

Steinberg, said he plans to appeal the verdict in Common Pleas Court. *

The shit you find when trying to google a topic....

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/2 ... nimum.html

Midnyte_Ragebringer · Post by **Midnyte_Ragebringer** » March 8, 2008, 4:44 pm

Fash wrote:
Nick wrote:How is that even fucking relevant? Killing things for no reason is bad, moron.
That's why I don't do it... But I don't fault people for hunting deer and the like (legal, but I still won't do it) or occasionally killing a bird (dumb ass birds that don't move when you almost hit them already, with a GOLF BALL FROM 75 YARDS)

Excellent and well-reasoned logic.

Aslanna · Post by **Aslanna** » March 8, 2008, 5:20 pm

Oh. I get it. So it's the birds fault for not moving. Bravo on that excellent bit of logic.