something most people don't about the

[Seamus Haley]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">why is everything black-and-white with people? Just because I agree with some of what PETA thinks, to the extent of people being veg but not to the point of actually hurting people for "the cause", doesn't mean that I agree with their extremist practices or views.</td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

This is actually a discussion I had with a woman who had  donated a very large sum of money to PETA and was attempting to use this to impress me...

You essentially summed up the reason that people refuse to acknowledge anything PETA has to say in your own statement right there. They are "extremist". They endorse an extremist point of view, support extremist activities and will not end their agenda after they meet that portion of their dogma that you happen to agree with.

By endorsing even a single thing they say, you endorse the group. There are numerous other pro-veggie, pro-vegan groups who recognize that they are making a personal choice and, while promulgating their position, do not try and force restrictions based on what is an individual values system. That is the difference between most organizations and one like PETA... That is why people are attcking your other points.

Further... Your statements that endorsed vegitarianism were identical to the statements endorsing meat consumption. When debating an issue, there are two primary actions that are used in an attempt to sway the view of the other party participating...  Promote the positive aspects of your own views and display the negative aspects of the opposing views... You did it... "We" did it... It is how the process is accomplished. Since the points about vegitarianism and the attack on hunting were initiated by you... There is no logical reason for you to complain that your views are being attacked. You presented them because you felt they were strong enough to overcome the views of those who you disagreed with. If they don't turn out to have overwhelming support and you don't end up "winning" you have no basis for complaint, you should have simply been more convincing.

I sincerely hope that you can see the reason that people will not acknowledge anything that PETA supports as being "right" when speaking specifically about the endorsement as being PETA originated... or HSUS initiated either.

Supporting PETA because you agree with one tiny aspect of their agenda is like voting for Hitler (again, stereotypical example, historical bad guy) as U.S. President because you like the Volkswagon Beetle.

 

[Florencia R.]

Okay...again....I DON'T support Peta. And don't even compare me to a neo-Nazi...that's infuriating! Anyway, that's what PETA did, comparing the Jews in camps to the animals in factory farms, so you're in essence supporting PETA. No, I'm not really serious, but I'm trying to make a point...Just because PETA and I both support vegetarianism, doesn't mean we're on the same page. I mean, both you and Hitler have had pets, right? He had a dog, and maybe you do too...or at least you have herps. What's the difference? How about just wording it a different way: I'm vegetarian, and the people of PETA also happen to be vegetarian.
Okay? You can't tell me that I'm supporting PETA by being vegetarian.

And another note: I never attacked anybody, I just explained why, perhaps, an animal organization would be against things that end in animal deaths. And perhaps, as well, it's my own opinion that calling hunting and fishing "American traditions" is ludicrous, and that it's sad if "killing for sport" is one of America's "greatest" traditions. And that's my opinion. I don't care what your opinion on the issue is. That's what I wanted to say from the beginning. So please, just let it GO, man!
People!
Seriously!
It's just a dang forum!
We're all people, here, why all the aggession and competition and whatever other reasons as to why people insist on arguing? The only reason I keep going on about this is because I keep consistently having to clear my name and re-word, for the hundreth time, what I meant in the beginning. I'm just a regular ole vegetarian...Do you react like this to all the veggies you meet? Really, I never condoned PETA or their actions, I don't support them regardless of what Mr. Seamus thinks (is that your real name?) and I really don't see what all the dang fuss is about!

 

[Double "D" Reptiles]

Interesting thread....

I would say that the original thinking of GM was reasonable according to their response.  They just didn't look at the entire picture and see the possible repercussions and implications involved with allowing their corporate identity to be mingled with the HSUS (BTW, some of their more mundane desires aren't so bad...just that they, too, have some wild-eyed, fanatical thinking that makes them personally undesireable to me.)

As far as vegan v. omnivor goes...to each their own.  My take is both personal and scientific.  Physiologically, the human mouth, whether through God's design or that of evolution (your preference) is that we are properly equipped to eat both plant and animal matter.  If you subscribe to evolution, then it would seem plausible that after so many eons of humankind's existence that if meat weren't supposed to be a staple part of the human diet that the front teeth would have evolved, even if modestly, towards more flat, chewing structures like those in the back of the mouth.

Biblical quoting will beget nothing except more argumentation from both sides (and I'm a minister) as each side has strong opinions either way.  Suffice to say that almost everyone can use the bible either by direct quoting or interpretation to bolster their argument for or against such issues.

As for hunting, a short history lesson in many states and current look at animal populations should be enough to warrant careful consideration of one's stance on the issue.  Every animal has a certain amount of space it needs and each piece of habitat has a finite carrying capacity for all the species which reside there.  Is it more "humane" to allow overpopulation which could lead to disease and total extermination of multiple species or the controlled "take" of species in need in order to "manage" animal populations?  I choose the latter.  Recognizing that 50 years ago that in the state of Oklahoma white-tailed deer were a threatened species and that today there is a solid and burgeoning population (overpopulated in some areas) is testament to wildlife management and conservation.  It is now up to hunters like myself to assist in population control of a species which has been allowed to return to a native habitat in great numbers.  Some years, I've hunted and never seen a thing.  Other years I've seen animals and not harvested one for various reasons.  Still, if possible, I do harvest one (more if licensing and opportunity allow) and enjoy the food it provides me and my family.  I know of people locally who do not enjoy the meat but who donate it through a state-wide program to families and shelters in order to provide meat to those in need.  

Is my position or opinion the right one?  Maybe not for everyone, but it works well for me in my current situation and way of life/thinking.  However, I'm willing to accept that not everyone is like me or thinks like me and am willing to respect that and not try to "force" my values on them.  I just hope that they can show the same respect in return.  Unfortunately, organizations such as PETA (I prefer to bastardize it to People Eating Tasty Animals) and HSUS feel the need for subterfuge and strong-arm tactics to push their views and ideals onto the general public, most of whom are totally unaware of the end goals desired.

Sorry for rambling...I'll go get more coffee now and shut up.

David Jobes
Double "D" Reptiles
Stigler, OK

 

[Julliet]

Well said David....
 Florencia...
  I was not attacking you personally I was just giving you the other side of the fence so to speak about hunting and fishing. I agree with David about population control through hunting and fishing...and yes I too have donated what my family could not use to those who are less fortunate then we were. For many generations my family has hunted responsibly and will continue to do so. With the diminishing habitats for which deer to prosper it is in the whole more responsible then to see an animal starve to death due to lack of food. Since the human population is ever growing we need the space to farm and live something has to be lost. I would rather see a few animals lost through hunting then the hundreds who would be lost due to disease and starvation.
 As far as the medical testing goes...I am not pro all testing however I could cite as many reasonable tests that are done as those which may seem ludicris and do not benifit the health of humans as a whole. However not everyone is able to derive the proper iron from plant matter...I for one do not absorb the iron from plants as I found out when pregnant with my son. I became very seriously anemic and could not absorb the iron in the pills that were given to me. I do absorb that from protein such as liver.
 If you wish to be a vegetarian that is great. I see nothing wrong with that. But for me I prefer to be a omnivore As long as we both remain healthy that is what matters.
 But also as a side note....I don't wear silk...after all the silk worm is killed for the fibers to make the cloth...the worm itself is then wasted. I do have deerskin shoes but that is from an animal that I had killed, and ate and used. To me that makes sense for nothing was wasted.
 I also fish a great deal. Recently I caught a shark the meat of which I ate as well as my animals. the shark had when gave birth to her babies all of which were full term. Those I rereleased back into the ocean..unlike alot of fisherman who I have seen kill the babies. I do believe in giving back that which I will not use. The shark itself was used to feed both me my reptiles and even my wolfhybrids...cooked first of course.
 The point of this long winded post is that there is no real right or wrong to an issue but that there must be a balance. No one side is right or wrong but acts of terrorism or vandalism is in no way an acceptable way to make anyone align to any point of view.
 The fact that you were able to voice your point of view is a luxury that many of us take for granted. I was simply adding my point of view as well as yours. Debating and different views are often thoughts from which great ideas are made.

Alison Crews

 

[Glenn Bartley]

And perhaps, as well, it's my own opinion that calling hunting and fishing "American traditions" is ludicrous, and that it's sad if "killing for sport" is one of America's "greatest" traditions.



Florencia,

I was wondering what you think is bad about hunting and fishing since you think it ludicrous to call hunting and fishing American traditions. I also wonder why you apparently think hunting is solely killing for sport as you call it!

I am not a vegetarian. I am, by nature, an omnivore. I am not a herd animal, I am by nature, a predator and gathers (more commonly called hunter/gather). Of course since the dawn of so called civilization, other people have attempted over time to change my nature to that of a passive user of someone else's end products. Mostly this was started by religious groups saying what we could or could not eat and when we could or could not do so. It has changed somewhat over the years, but in essence it is the same. They have tried to sway me to become an overstuffed couch potato who survives by consuming the fruit of someone else's labors - such as farmers, and make certain that I cannot possibly be self sufficient. Because of the circumstances of my birth and our social conditions in general I do make use of the fruits of another's labor, of course, only after paying for such with the fruits of my own. I do however also get in touch with my nature as often as I practically can, and therefor I truly enjoy the traditional American traditions of hunting and fishing. I enjoy it so much so that I actually eat what I kill. I enjoy meat, and if I choose to kill an animal to directly obtain some of my own, does that make me a bad person? You used some religious mumbo jumbo to imply that yes indeed it makes me a sinner. Something about 'Thou shalt not kill' being applicable to animals. I am not Jewish, those are part of the Jewish faith. There were only two commandments left by Jesus Christ for Christians to follow which were in essence Love Thy God and Love Thy Neighbor. Hmmm, nothing about not killing an animal or fish  to eat; and wouldn't Christ have been a bit hypocritical if he had said not to go fishing and not to eat fish? So which religion is correct, oh wait did you forget - there are a few other religions around aren't there. Which one of the many is correct?

I know at least one religion that considers plants to be sacred. I also used to, when I had the time, enjoy gardening. I actually grew quite a bit of the vegetables I ate. I enjoyed harvesting  the fruits of my own labors and eating them too. Now am I wrong to eat a carrot because I pulled it screaming from the earth. If I were left to fend for myself and my family, because of some major unthinkable catastrophe, my family would not starve.

Lest people think I am off the mark with regard to the original topic: Let me tell you now, something that PETA and the HSUS will never tell you about modern regulated sport hunting, and these facts come from various state Fish & Game departments:

In 1900 less than 500,000 White Tailed Deer remained in the whole of the USA. As of 1997 there were over 18,000,000 (yes 18 million) of them roaming the USA.

In the 1940s there were only about 1,200,000 Canada Geese remaining in the world mainly due to habitat destruction in Canada. Now there are over 3,500,000.

Other animals that were gravely endangered were the: Rocky Mountain Elk then 41,000 now about 800,000; Wild Turkey then 100,000 now 4,500,000; Pronghorn then 12,000 now 1,100,000. Modern American sport hunting has never endangered a single specie, but only helped to protect them.
Yes these figures are from 1997, but think about it. How did these animals make such comebacks. Was it because all hunting was stopped or because something else was done? Where did the money come to help these animals? In 1995 alone, $981 million (yes million) of funding for wildlife conservation came from the sales of state hunting and fishing licenses, in 1996 $439 million came from taxes paid by hunters and fishermen (due to excise taxes on hunting and fishing supplies that by law must go directly to wildlife conservation - yet it has been reported to me that PETA has tried to stop this tax use); $300 million from other sources (including the sale of 'Duck Stamps' for migratory game bird hunting); and $153 million from state funds in that time frame.

Hunters and fishermen/women supply more funding for wildlife conservation than all anti-hunting/fishing groups combined, and do so by leaps and bounds not by baby steps. In fact as of 1997 they supplied more than 75% of the funding of state wildlife conservation agencies. PETA and the HSUS would choose stop that, if I understand them correctly.

From what I can see (my opinion), both PETA and the HSUS, in general, seem to take animals and give them human qualities much as did Walt Disney in his cartoon Bambi. As far as fairy tales go, Bambi was ok. As far as real life goes - give me a break, but yet some people in those groups seem to believe, in essence, that such is real life. They choose to take Walt Disney's portrayal of the hunter, in Bambi, as a mean slobbering, littering drunk as fact. The fact is that when the great majority of hunters hunter, and the great majority of people fish, they do so legally, sober, and keep nature clean for the next time they go out - and for the time when their children will go out. On the other hand, have you been to camp grounds lately where no hunting and fishing is allowed. I have and I was disgusted by the rampant filth left behind by the self called environmentally friendly campers.

I do not agree with PETA or the HSUS on any of their issues; however I do support wildlife conservation. Just because I support wildlife conservation does not side me with PETA nor with HSUS. Our goals are not the same. Their goals are the end result of stopping hunting, fishing, many agricultural traditions using animals, ranching, trapping, fur use, leather use, most pet care (pet care of reptiles and amphibians in particular is one for which they seek a total ban). Don't choose to believe me, then see the linked article:

Report Urges Ban of Reptiles As Pets

In my opinion, groups such as PETA and HSUS seek to become the new ultra extreme people controllers of this century much as extremist religious groups seek to control people. In that regard, I regard in my opinion, such groups as extremely dangerous to the well being of our planet. They are, in my opinion, ultra extremists, and their only true goal, again in my opinion, is to control people and what people think and do. They for the most part don't give a damn about animal rights, they what to be in power to control what you can think, say and do. They are not only a threat, as I see it in my opinion, to our great traditions of hunting and fishing, but also to our great traditions of pet keeping, farming and ranching, freedom of speech and expression, and our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness among others. I do not say this last lightly either. I say it because I believe it. Read this second article that I have linked to,  and you will see why: Peta's Push To Punish People

Believe what you will believe about these groups and let the cards fall where they may. I on the other hand will remain passionate about my fight to stop these groups from controlling my life. You feel this is all silly, and I quote: "Seriously, this whole thing is so silly and yet you're all so passionate about it". Yes I am passionate about this whole thing. To be anything less would be to be less than responsible when it comes to defending what I believe in when attacked by extremists.

Best regards,
Glenn Bartley

 

[P120_Cartman]

Quote  
Dear PETA
As I set here in my mink lined Ostrich skin house slippers eating a beef jerky stick while enjoying all the animal mounts in my den under the light cast threw my real silk worm silk lamp shades and suffering from a serious bloat from the lobster dinner I just had, I have but one thing to say to you,   .

Now sirs, if you don't mind I will adjourn to my bear skin rug and play a naked cherub with a turkey drum stick as a harp and watch all the rats I just brained get eaten by all my perfect enslaved Basins that will soon be forced to breed for me so I can profit off their young.  But before I do that I must pick the lobster remains from between my teeth with the whale bone tooth pick I have soaking in Black Rhino horn juice next to my lifetime supply of dried Panda gal bladders for medicinal use only.

God I miss clubbing baby seals while wearing my Silver Fox skin fur coat and sea turtle hard hat lined with Angora.  Maybe you can send me a list of people you protest so I can call them and join in the fun again.  I still have my club made from the femur of an elephant we slaughtered for the Ivory.

Yours Truly,

The Animal Prostitute


I found this to be funny as hel* and Thank you Tim, for sharing this with us!!!!!!

 

[Florencia R.]

Juliet and Glenn -

You both bring up good points, many of which I agree with (including things that you think I don't). I really don't want to go on about this issue, however now I have to..
I have to note that I'm glad that you, Glenn, as a hunter, are the kind of person you are. It's great that you use what you kill and help the less fortunate as well. But...I'd just like to note that a big reason for the surge in herbivore populations--most of the animals you listed--is because their top predators are being killed for many reasons. Another source of revenue for the Forestry Service, besides money from selling acres of trees to mills and giving out hunting permits, is the bounty placed on the heads of animals like coyote and wolves. When these animals' populations drop, the deer's population goes up. Then we need hunters like you to replace the wolves and keep the deer in check. It's sort of a big cycle...
I really want to stress the point that I agree with all of you about PETA and other groups like them; they're touting so-called freedom and compassion and yet they're pushing their beliefs on others and even hurting people for the cause. And when their cause is supposed to be non-violence toward all beings, it's interesting that they're using violence in the process..A bit hypocritical, no? I've never been a fan of groups like this, who "know" they're "right" and do what they do in the name of "freedom"...the Black Panthers, for example...I believe you, Glenn, about what PETA's goals are. They and the groups they work with often send me all sorts of things in the mail telling me to join their cause, and I've seen their websites and their demonstrations and the like.
By the way...By "this thing" I meant this argument within this thread, not the issue at hand. Just so you know.
I'd also like to note about the physiology thing....Though humans are built to consume small amounts of animal matter, the key word is SMALL. Most people eat far too much, ending in the kinds of health problems we see. And whoever was talking about monkeys, us, and evolution....Through our evolution from monkeys to what we are now, you can see how small our canines have evolved from what they were in primates. Just watch any monkey yawn...yikes! The reason we haven't evolved completely herbivore teeth is because, first off, herbivores don't have molars in the front. Second, humans have not been around for very long. And third, evolution doesn't really work like that. An entire species doesn't just change, it's certain groups in certain areas that adapt to their surroundings. The less-adapted ones die off, leaving the more adapted version as the new species. Anyway....if that makes sense, ok. If it doesn't, just ignore it.
As far as religion...Of course I'm aware that there are other religions. I'm not Christian, you know..in fact I'm not really any *specific* religion. However you'll notice that I actually referenced several different religions, from Hindu to Ayuvedic principles to Hare Krishnas and whatever. (I just didn't mention the names..remember? "Eastern religions") And in fact you can find scripture in ALL religions that say that eating animals is a sin. But again, I'm no theology expert..
Just to make sure you all get this: I'm not with PETA! I don't support them! Okay?

P120 Cartman -

Come on....That's just retarded. What's the point?
(Anyway, Dennis Leary already did that, and it was actually funny.)

 

[Florencia R.]

...although it did remind me of a joke.

So a seal walks into a club.

<img src="http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif" border="0" valign="absmiddle" alt=''>

 

[Clay Davenport]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Another source of revenue for the Forestry Service, besides money from selling acres of trees to mills and giving out hunting permits, is the bounty placed on the heads of animals like coyote and wolves. When these animals' populations drop, the deer's population goes up. Then we need hunters like you to replace the wolves and keep the deer in check. </td></tr></table><span id='postcolor'>

This is actually a fallacy, and a common propoganda tactic used by groups such as HSUS and Peta. The repeating of such common statements and arguments used by these two groups seems to be a recurring theme in your posts.

Actually wolves are an endangered species so there is no bounty on them anywhere, and hasn't been for several decades.
There remain isolated areas in the US that still offer coyote bounties, but this is mainly for domestic livestock reasons.
It has been established that coyotes have very little effect on deer or elk populations, so the killing or not killing of them has negligable influence, although this is the stated reason in some cases for the bounty.
In fact this is a primary point used by environmentalist groups lobbying to end such bounties where they occur.

For instance in New York state first recorded coyotes in the 1930s and had a large population by the 1960s. Despite this healthy population of coyotes, the deer population continued to advance at such a rate it hit an all time high in the 1980s.

Actually coyotes are primarily scavangers and small game hunters. The reasons for this are the effort vs. benefit equation. Coyotes are not equipped for long chases, and when they are unsuccessful, they result in large wastes of valuable energy. For this reason, when coyotes do kill deer, it is normally the very young, or the sick and injured. Grown healthy deer are rarely prey for coyotes. They subsist more on small rodents, rabbits, and ground dwelling birds.

I only say this to illustrate that considering the lack of effect coyotes present toward deer numbers, any bounty if imposed does nothing to help or hurt deer populations anyway.

As for your idea that the revenue of the Forest Service is somehow boosted by these bounties, I would be interested to know as to how.
Most often these bounties are sponsored by local governments. But regardless of whether it is sponsored locally or statewide, bounties are paid by the sponsoring agency to the private citizens who kill them. The money flows only one way, from the government to the hunter, how is it possible that these bounties can increase the Forest Service revenue when they would be the ones paying the bounty?

 

[spyderdixie]

I do not hunt but I do eat deer meat. Deer meat is much healthier for you than beef or pork because it is lean. But I do believe if you are going to hunt then you should do it on the ground instead of a majority of hunters in a tree stand, the reason why I have this view is it is more fair on the animal. Most will problem disagree with me but that Is my opinion. But on the other hand if being a vegetarian is the way to go, than why does every grocery store I go to have veggie burgers, veggie corndogs, veggie hotdogs, and the list can go on and on.
   If you try to take away someone's right to hunt or fish you will then say if there is no more hunting than there is no more need for guns, And when the guns are banned than the rest of your rights will be took away from you. Look at Nazi Germany they had a gun registration and then a ban, then look what Hitler did afterwards.
    So basically this is what it boils down to do not tell me that I have to eat just veggies and be a pail person with a iron deficiency and diarrhea and do not tell me that I have to give up my guns and me or my family has to be a victim when some pedophile comes in and tries to rape my daughter or wife.

 

[Florencia R.]

Obviously nobody took me up on my offer...anyhoo...

Clay -
Say what you will about the Forestry Service, but either way they're all messed up. That aside...

Spyderdixie -
I never called people who eat meat "fat, greasy slobs with heart disease" (not that all are so) so please don't call me a pale anemic with diarrhea!
And as I see it, guns *should* be banned, however that would not really solve any problems, but rather create more; then criminals would get guns off the black market and average joe wouldn't have any way to protect their loved ones and defend themselves because they couldn't legally buy a gun...That's the ugly cycle with guns. Everyone says that they have a gun to protect themselves from other people with guns........or to "kill stuff."
Yes, I agree that tree posts are definitely a cheater way to hunt. My brother is in archery and there was this guy who hangs a bunch of meat from a tree, hides in the canopy, and then shoots any bear that comes by. *pff* At least go and find a bear and stand up to him to prove your bravery, and then kill him, not just hide in a tree like a pussy and shoot him in the back.