a href="http://www.lancasterarchery.com/archery-classic-register/#header">
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 60

Thread: Supporters of Antis

  1. #26

    petition

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry/NJ
    See if your favorite movie star is trying to deny you your right to hunt.

    http://www.activistcash.com/index_celebrities.cfm
    hey jerry, should we sign the petition on the website or no?

    Party with the BIG KAHUNA


  2. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    NorthEast MO
    Posts
    1,313
    Quote Originally Posted by ftshooter
    Is AOL on the list ..I have had people tell me they are antis ..And I sure thought so , as when I used them a while back ..they block gun sites etc..
    I've pretty much quit using Google because they block anything firearm related.
    Lookin' California but feelin' Minnesota
    If I had it all again I'd change it all.

  3. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by bushbuck
    Roxanne Quimby- COO of Burts Bees, based in Durham NC. She is attempting to develop a 3.2 million acre National park in Maine. The proposed would be larger than Yellowstone and Yosemite combined> Yes NO HUNTING and she wants to make it a national park so You pay to maintain it. When the Nature Conservancy bought 185,000 acres in Maine she donated 2 million dollars. She just bought 24,083 thousand acres for 12 million and kicked all the hunters off, as well as the snowmobile trails closed. She has purchased another 15,921 acres at 7.1 million and yes its all now closed to hunters..
    How much of this elite stuff is going on in Your area? They buy the land, turn it over to the goverment so they can maintain it and avoid future taxes, with the stipulation that there will be no hunting..
    i'm not trying to bash or cut down but with people who have money to buy land like this for the antis wouldnt it be smart or a good idea for our money makers(ranches, outfitters and hunting celebs) to get together and buy as much land as possible and keep open to hunting. i dont mean more ranches but just land like state or federal land, and get donations to keep it up or help pay for taxes and other expenses.
    just my .02
    Party with the BIG KAHUNA

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Opelika, AL
    Posts
    725
    Yeah Natural, i agree. I have often thought about starting some type of non-profit where a big pool of people could go in together and buy tracts of land, then setting it up like a timeshare kind of deal. Then you could get government incentives etc to keep it preserved. i don't have the knowledge or experience to do anything like that, but I'd certainly put some $ in the pot. The nature conservency would be awesome if they didn't kick the hunters out. At least they keep the developers out.

  5. #30

    Talking killentime

    Peta had better clean there own back yard. or has everyone gorgot about the thousounds of puppys they are killing a day. Wonder what they think is humain. I was confronted in the 70s in the great state of colorado by some ant eyes and they egged me for bow hunting. i see them like a poor slow coon hit on the road. they are slow

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    7

    Animal Rights != Anti-hunter

    First, let me just say that I support the hunting/fishing/harvesting of animals as long as it's done ethically and responsibly. I'm not a hunter myself, but all of the hunters I've known (bow and rifle) have been strong advocates of outdoor preservation, including resource management and sustainable hunting. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

    That being said, I think you need to be careful when you start lumping together large groups of people and putting a single label on them. Just to bring up a couple of examples:

    1. Dolphin/Tuna advocates. ftshooter, in response to your question, yes it does happen. My understanding, based on some limited research, is that schools of Tuna often swim under pods of Dolphins. The idea is that by setting the net around the dolphins, you will also get a school of Tuna. This practice is illegal in the US and the US actually embargoes imports of Tuna from countries that still allow it. Note that the prohibition is on the intentional catch of dolphins. Most fishing fleets for the US have observers onboard that make sure that this doesn't happen. From what I've read, most of the advocacy groups for Dolphin-Safe Tuna are trying to ensure that the embargoes stay up on countries that continue the practice, as well as education and legislation efforts in those countries to reduce the problem. If you really want to read up on it, here are a few pages with some background:

    http://www.maninnature.com/Fisheries/Tuna/tuna1a.html
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/aidcp.htm
    http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/...e/edis04_e.htm

    2. Anti-Animal testing advocates. This is an area that has a broad range of groups advocating different things. Some groups advocate a strict ban on all animal testing, something that I think is completely unreasonable. Other groups are advocating limited bans, while still more groups are trying to fund research for replacements for animal testing. I have friends who do biomedical research and their ideal would be to have some sort of synthetic model for testing (computer or chemical), since that essentially eliminates the variations that you see in natural species and allows for much quicker and large-scale testing of drugs, products, etc. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet at that level, so animal testing must continue. There may be some correlation between people in the strict ban camp and anti-hunting rights, but I don't think you can automatically imply the link.

    I just wanted to point out that it's really easy to get upset about an issue and just turn it into an us vs. them argument. Also, as was correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, some people may be donating to causes based on a single aspect of the cause. I don't know that this automatically means that the donor is anti-hunting. It may mean that the donor is ignorant of the full scope of the organization, but that just means the donor didn't do their homework. The only real way to tell would be if the donor actually made a statement one way or the other. Perhaps you should actually write some of these people and see what their stance really is?

    I think the key in this case is to not only discuss who may be supporting restricting hunting rights, but what you can do to ensure a future in which you're allowed to hunt. "The Natural"s idea of pooling money to purchase land so that you can set aside preserves sounds like a good idea. Another important step is to make sure you maintain a dialog with your elected representatives and local fish and wildlife agencies; you won't accomplish anything ranting about who wants to take away your rights on a bulletin board.

    Good luck, and happy hunting

    Derek

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tonawanda, NY, USA
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by dchenbecker
    First, let me just say that I support the hunting/fishing/harvesting of animals as long as it's done ethically and responsibly. I'm not a hunter myself, but all of the hunters I've known (bow and rifle) have been strong advocates of outdoor preservation, including resource management and sustainable hunting. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

    That being said, I think you need to be careful when you start lumping together large groups of people and putting a single label on them. Just to bring up a couple of examples:

    1. Dolphin/Tuna advocates. ftshooter, in response to your question, yes it does happen. My understanding, based on some limited research, is that schools of Tuna often swim under pods of Dolphins. The idea is that by setting the net around the dolphins, you will also get a school of Tuna. This practice is illegal in the US and the US actually embargoes imports of Tuna from countries that still allow it. Note that the prohibition is on the intentional catch of dolphins. Most fishing fleets for the US have observers onboard that make sure that this doesn't happen. From what I've read, most of the advocacy groups for Dolphin-Safe Tuna are trying to ensure that the embargoes stay up on countries that continue the practice, as well as education and legislation efforts in those countries to reduce the problem. If you really want to read up on it, here are a few pages with some background:

    http://www.maninnature.com/Fisheries/Tuna/tuna1a.html
    http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/aidcp.htm
    http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/...e/edis04_e.htm

    2. Anti-Animal testing advocates. This is an area that has a broad range of groups advocating different things. Some groups advocate a strict ban on all animal testing, something that I think is completely unreasonable. Other groups are advocating limited bans, while still more groups are trying to fund research for replacements for animal testing. I have friends who do biomedical research and their ideal would be to have some sort of synthetic model for testing (computer or chemical), since that essentially eliminates the variations that you see in natural species and allows for much quicker and large-scale testing of drugs, products, etc. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet at that level, so animal testing must continue. There may be some correlation between people in the strict ban camp and anti-hunting rights, but I don't think you can automatically imply the link.

    I just wanted to point out that it's really easy to get upset about an issue and just turn it into an us vs. them argument. Also, as was correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, some people may be donating to causes based on a single aspect of the cause. I don't know that this automatically means that the donor is anti-hunting. It may mean that the donor is ignorant of the full scope of the organization, but that just means the donor didn't do their homework. The only real way to tell would be if the donor actually made a statement one way or the other. Perhaps you should actually write some of these people and see what their stance really is?

    I think the key in this case is to not only discuss who may be supporting restricting hunting rights, but what you can do to ensure a future in which you're allowed to hunt. "The Natural"s idea of pooling money to purchase land so that you can set aside preserves sounds like a good idea. Another important step is to make sure you maintain a dialog with your elected representatives and local fish and wildlife agencies; you won't accomplish anything ranting about who wants to take away your rights on a bulletin board.

    Good luck, and happy hunting

    Derek
    This is a bloviation of the smelliest order. Derek, are you out of your mind? Let's take these point by point, as the Truth Detector is here to help clarify and crystalize some very important information for you, as to help you better understand our ROLE in nature, and why certain things are the way they are.

    1 - Dolphin-Safe Tuna - Being a former sales rep of Chicken of the Sea Tuna/ Van Camp Seafoods, and just so happened to sell tuna pre and post dolphin-safe era, let me 'splain how this happened, and the effects this has had on our own commercial fishing fleet. Many different species of tuna swim in the sea. Of the myriad of fish to catch, commercial tuna fishing centers around 3 species - Yellowfin, Skipjack and Albacore. Albacore, or Solid White Tuna, was moved away from netting and the method of long-lining for these silvery dandies took its place on the fishing fleets observing dolphin safe. End result was a moderate price advance, not to mention downsizing of consumer packed retail tuna from the standard 6.5 oz (9.75 oz, 3.25oz, and 12.5 oz) to 6 oz, 9 oz, 12 oz and 3 oz. This downsizing was done gradually (like 6.5 went to 6.25, then, 6.13, and finally 6) across all "cuts" of tuna. Yellowfin and Skipjack are used for the Chunk and Solid LIGHT. Yellowfin are a large, robust tuna, while skipjack are smaller, slightly oilier cousin. Yellowfin are notorious for feeding under schools of dolphin, as the tuna push the bait to the surface, and dolphin school up and feed on the herrings. Setting Purse Seine nets around the area where dolphin are schooling is a sure bet you'll get yellowfins. However, you do encounter some mortality from dolphins as well. Skipjack, which are smaller and more costly (through less yeild per fish) do not tend to push bait to where the dolphin roam, and use of electronics are better to find the skipjack. Now, what has happened to world porpoise populations since dolphin-safe was introduced? They've declined. At least the species we are trying to "save", which do not run in tuna waters to begin with! No, actually Heinz, makers of Starkist tuna, was introducing their latest bottle (plastic squeeze) during the big recycling push under Clinton, and in order to get the heat off their replacing a renewable through washing glass bottle, they gave the wackos the dolphins. More money in ketchup sales. The industry followed suit, but some Nations still do not abide by the agreements, not that even if they did would it make any difference. And as for our fleet? GONZO. AT least the tuna fishing industry, domestically, is now a shadow of its former self. Thanks wackos. I'm sure the former captains and mates and deck hands thank them too.

    2 - Anti-ANimal testing. You need to do some homework my friend. The motivation behind stopping animal testing is "a total liberation of the animal from human domination." Go visit peta.org, or HSUS or another of these wacko groups spouting forth this nonsense. Part of liberating animals from human oppression is ceasing all hunting, trapping, fishing and any other NATURAL MEANS OF POPULATION BALANCE. Besides, animal testing is necessary for the exact reason you pointed out, only in reverse. All the computer modeling in the world cannot account for the "living" factor, Derek. Medicines, new surgical procedures, etc, all must be tested on living things before rolled out up the evolutionary scale. I do not like the testing of cosmetics, but, hey, we got plenty of animals. The pain of a few gives bennies to the many.

    Finally, these organizations like PETA, HSUS, ALF, ELF, ASPCA, etc., ALL are fighting against hunting and trapping and angling (not to mention pet ownership, the fur trade, animal testing, eating meat! and farming - KFC and the holocaust), and anyone connected with an organization like PETA, HSUS or ASPCA, despite spouting they give for the house cats, are also supporting all the other stupidity. After all, you don't get to tell these folks where to apply you cash when you make a donation.

    Therefore, if you care about wildlife, and care about animals, DO NOT SUPPORT THESE WACKOS. They see only the "good of the individual" and could care less about the continuance of a species.
    Last edited by doctariAFC; March 28th, 2006 at 03:26 PM.

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    This is a bloviation of the smelliest order. Derek, are you out of your mind? Let's take these point by point, as the Truth Detector is here to help clarify and crystalize some very important information for you, as to help you better understand our ROLE in nature, and why certain things are the way they are.
    So I try to have a rational discussion and you essentially call me a pompous ass (the definition of bloviate)? My past experience says it's useless trying to argue with the moderator, but here goes...

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    1 - Dolphin-Safe Tuna - Being a former sales rep of Chicken of the Sea Tuna/ Van Camp Seafoods, and just so happened to sell tuna pre and post dolphin-safe era, let me 'splain how this happened, and the effects this has had on our own commercial fishing fleet.
    While I appreciate the perspective that you have given your experience in the industry, I'm still more inclined to give more weight to the reports I've read that have been written by scientists involved with research on the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Now, what has happened to world porpoise populations since dolphin-safe was introduced? They've declined. At least the species we are trying to "save", which do not run in tuna waters to begin with!
    The studies that I've seen aren't saying that there is an increase in dolphin populations due to reducing the practice, but rather that there is a decrease in mortalities. Those two are not the same thing. I'm sure there are any number of other environmental factors (man-made and natural) that may contribute to the overall decline in the population.

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    2 - Anti-ANimal testing. You need to do some homework my friend. The motivation behind stopping animal testing is "a total liberation of the animal from human domination." Go visit peta.org, or HSUS or another of these wacko groups spouting forth this nonsense.
    I think you need to reread my post. I specifically mentioned that there are groups completely opposed to animal testing, and that I disagree with that. I also mentioned that there are groups that aren't nearly this extreme, just see:

    http://altweb.jhsph.edu/about.htm

    As for your assertion that we will never be able to replace animal tests with something else, I'd say you haven't been keeping up with biomedical engineering (not a lot of people do). Advances in medical technology are coming at an alarming pace, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see test "surrogates" within the next 15-20 years.

    Saying that because some extremist groups like PETA support banning animal testing that any groups supporting reductions in animal testing are automatically anti-hunting is making an inference that isn't there. For the record, I think that PETA is pretty extremist, not to mention completely unreasonable on points like this.

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    ...not to mention pet ownership, the fur trade, animal testing, eating meat! and farming - KFC and the holocaust
    OK, you lose me when you start to bring the holocaust into this...

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Therefore, if you care about wildlife, and care about animals, DO NOT SUPPORT THESE WACKOS. They see only the "good of the individual" and could care less about the continuance of a species.
    I didn't say you should support these "WACKOS". I was merely trying to give some perspective that it's not merely a black-and-white issue. I was also trying to say that there are other, more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities.

    Derek

  9. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Washi
    I've pretty much quit using Google because they block anything firearm related.
    I just googled the word "Firearm" and it didn't block any. First site on the search was the homepage to Sterm Ruger. Maybe check your browser settings. Or firewall program.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tonawanda, NY, USA
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by dchenbecker
    So I try to have a rational discussion and you essentially call me a pompous ass (the definition of bloviate)? My past experience says it's useless trying to argue with the moderator, but here goes...



    While I appreciate the perspective that you have given your experience in the industry, I'm still more inclined to give more weight to the reports I've read that have been written by scientists involved with research on the issue.



    The studies that I've seen aren't saying that there is an increase in dolphin populations due to reducing the practice, but rather that there is a decrease in mortalities. Those two are not the same thing. I'm sure there are any number of other environmental factors (man-made and natural) that may contribute to the overall decline in the population.



    I think you need to reread my post. I specifically mentioned that there are groups completely opposed to animal testing, and that I disagree with that. I also mentioned that there are groups that aren't nearly this extreme, just see:

    http://altweb.jhsph.edu/about.htm

    As for your assertion that we will never be able to replace animal tests with something else, I'd say you haven't been keeping up with biomedical engineering (not a lot of people do). Advances in medical technology are coming at an alarming pace, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see test "surrogates" within the next 15-20 years.

    Saying that because some extremist groups like PETA support banning animal testing that any groups supporting reductions in animal testing are automatically anti-hunting is making an inference that isn't there. For the record, I think that PETA is pretty extremist, not to mention completely unreasonable on points like this.



    OK, you lose me when you start to bring the holocaust into this...



    I didn't say you should support these "WACKOS". I was merely trying to give some perspective that it's not merely a black-and-white issue. I was also trying to say that there are other, more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities.

    Derek
    Restate your post. There is no in between when dealing with Animal Rights wackos, Derek. It is about as black and white as it gets. Sorry, but now I am feeling a wet sensation on my neck, and I know it ain't raining.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Restate your post. There is no in between when dealing with Animal Rights wackos, Derek. It is about as black and white as it gets. Sorry, but now I am feeling a wet sensation on my neck, and I know it ain't raining.
    OK, I think I see the problem. I'm not using the dictionary definition of Animal Rights, I was equating it with Animal Welfare. That being said, I still don't think that lumping groups like CAAT or Dolphin advocacy in with people like PETA is fair or productive. I've been saying all along that I think PETA et. al are extremists and that I support hunter's rights, so I really don't understand the tone of your posts; I'd really like an explanation.

    I still stand behind my assertion that there are much more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities. While you boycott their books/music/movies they'll continue to donate to groups that actively work on legislation and preserves to reduce hunting.

    Derek

  12. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tonawanda, NY, USA
    Posts
    11,798
    Quote Originally Posted by dchenbecker
    OK, I think I see the problem. I'm not using the dictionary definition of Animal Rights, I was equating it with Animal Welfare. That being said, I still don't think that lumping groups like CAAT or Dolphin advocacy in with people like PETA is fair or productive. I've been saying all along that I think PETA et. al are extremists and that I support hunter's rights, so I really don't understand the tone of your posts; I'd really like an explanation.

    I still stand behind my assertion that there are much more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities. While you boycott their books/music/movies they'll continue to donate to groups that actively work on legislation and preserves to reduce hunting.

    Derek
    Fair enough. I will give you an explanation.

    Animal Rights Groups are wackos. They put the value of an animal before the value of a human, and they put the value of an individual animal ahead of the survival of a species.

    Anyone who supports any animal rights group, even with the "best of intentions" for fluffy and fido, are erroneously promoting an agenda that will hurt ecosystems, restrict freedoms, decimate wildlife populations and have long-lasting ill affects on our own survival as well (nature is relational, with every living being filling a purpose). We are all co-dependent on each other species for survival. This is a lesson somewhat taught in elementary school, and continues throughout wildlife biology studies (I have degrees in Marine Science and Biology - Marine SCience/ Biology was a double major at University of Miami).

    I can understand you mean well, Derek. However, celebrities would like nothing more than to get hunters and anglers out of the field, not buying fishing tackle and hunting gear and spending their time and money at the theatres and cinemas, lining their pockets. If you take the time to read some of the positions these pukes hold and promote, you will see the necessity to completely and utterly defeat and destroy this nonsensical and very dangerous Animal Rights BS. Incidentally, I hope you know that this FBI is fully investigating PETA, and the ties they have to Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, the two most dangerous domestic terrorist organizations in the USA. May Newkirk and her ilk get the prison time they so greatly deserve.

    Oh, and, believe me when I tell you that I am one of the sportsmen in the trenches, fighting the nonsense on a daily basis, to assure future generations of their ability to hunt, trap and fish, and to make certain our children and their children and so on have the opportunity to learn about wildlife first hand, rather than in some classroom with a picture book and a teacher saying "I remember when...." Just read my signature line. I am on the front lines, and have a solid education in who the enemy is, what they stand for, their tactics and their resources. You can only reason with reasonable people, Derek. The Animal Rights movement, IN TOTAL is made up of unreasonable people. Anyone who would bomb medical research facilities, vandalize farms and the like are certainly not reasonable, by anyone's definition of the word.

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Denver, Colorado
    Posts
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Animal Rights Groups are wackos. They put the value of an animal before the value of a human, and they put the value of an individual animal ahead of the survival of a species.
    I completely agree, I don't think I said otherwise. The thing that got me started was that there were groups in the first list posted that didn't look like they were in the same league as PETA. If you're saying that it's an either/or situation, are there any groups that are pro-animal welfare and not animal rights?

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Anyone who supports any animal rights group, even with the "best of intentions" for fluffy and fido, are erroneously promoting an agenda that will hurt ecosystems, restrict freedoms, decimate wildlife populations and have long-lasting ill affects on our own survival as well (nature is relational, with every living being filling a purpose).
    If we're talking strictly about "Animal Rights" as defined above, then I agree with that statement. I can't agree with it if that means you think the endangered species act should be revoked, or that cattle shouldn't be slaughtered in a humane manner, for instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Incidentally, I hope you know that this FBI is fully investigating PETA, and the ties they have to Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, the two most dangerous domestic terrorist organizations in the USA. May Newkirk and her ilk get the prison time they so greatly deserve.
    I'm well aware of their links, not to mentioned their own actions, that's why it struck me as odd that Dolphin advocacy groups and people promoting research into alternatives to animal testing would be lumped in with them.

    Unlike PETA, neither of those groups are advocating a complete ban on fishing or lab work, they're trying to advocate alternatives. As for the reduction in the tuna fishing fleets/industries, I concede that the dolphin-safe practices may have led to an immediate diminishment of the fleets. However, overfishing in the Atlantic has led to recent problems with the cod stock, and the Japanese have voluntarily reduced their tuna fleets due to similar concerns. Like you said, nature is a balance and our continued stewardship of resources is critical to maintaining it.

    Quote Originally Posted by doctariAFC
    Anyone who would bomb medical research facilities, vandalize farms and the like are certainly not reasonable, by anyone's definition of the word.
    I completely agree.

    Good luck and happy hunting

    Derek

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Tonawanda, NY, USA
    Posts
    11,798
    Ok..... Look, "lumping in" is EXACTLY what the Animal Right's Groups do! They're very well organized, very determined and extremely well financed. If you do not think a connection exists between the dolphin-safe and some of these wacko groups, well, you can do the research

    http://www.hsus.org/about_us/our_glo...nd_affiliates/
    http://www.nahee.org/links.asp
    http://www.humaneteen.org/
    http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_...rnational_hsi/
    http://www.hsus.org/about_us/hsus_hollywood_office/
    http://www.hsus.org/about_us/celebrity_support/
    http://www.hsus.org/about_us/celebri...r_animals.html

    http://www.peta.org/
    http://www.peta.org/other.asp
    http://www.petabusinessfriends.com/
    http://www.animalactivist.com/

    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about
    http://www.greenpeace.org/internatio...he-environment

    I find it especially interesting reading concerning Greenpeace anti-whaling and HSUS anti-whaling...... Coincidence? Nope...

    There's tons more, but this is a good start. Poke around and get educated and see exactly how the tentacles of this octopus reside. You'll be amazed, and, if you truly have a care for wildlife, and animals in general, you will do whatever you can to beat these wackos. Folks with good intentions, but supporting these groups and their agenda should be educated as to the DIRECT relationships to other Animal Rights Groups, which are exactly what we are talking about.

    You will be far better off if you trust the hunters, anglers, trappers and others, plus wildlife biologists and land managers who spend the time and do the homework out in the field, rather than from a college lecture hall. You learn so much more about nature as an active participant in the food chain than you can ever hope to learn by simply being a silent observer. WHat you learn is the reality of nature, and that is the foundation for sound stewardship.

    These pukes? Dangerous to the environment, the wildlife, and indeed to ourselves.

  15. #40
    As bad as this may sound I am so glad that I fight and my friends died so that A) We can have this forum to chat B) That no matter how foolish someone may sound they can can still be as anti-hunting as they want. Now as I will say everytime I read something like this what can we as archers, outdoorsman, hunters, members of a free thinking democracy do about it.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    694
    I don't see Ryan Newman and his wife in the thread.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Martinsville, In
    Posts
    174

    Fox News Support

    Not sure how many have seen this but thought It should be Posted
    Fox News will not air the anti-trapping Ads the HSUS sponsered
    Here is the news http://www.hunttheoutdoors.com/news/default.php?id=929
    Good for us not so good for them

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Martinsville, In
    Posts
    174
    Last edited by ban_t; February 15th, 2007 at 06:07 PM. Reason: I missed a few things

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    360

    Angry We are our own worst enemies

    Some of these threads only add fuel to the fire....dollors to donuts the anti's reading AT. The antis are more passionate about there cause than hunters/fisherman about their heritage. (lazy?)

    National Hunting and Fishing Day is in September, so is hunting season here. The only displays and advertising for hunting going on are hunters dumping the gut pile, hides, heads and bones of their "harvest" on the road side turn-outs for everyone passing by to see.

    We are very much in the minority and if we cannot spend the effort to keep our Heritage clean and positive we get what we deserve.

    2006 showed another decrease in the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. We are below 14% of the population that hunt or fish and hunting is the minority in the group.

    What are we going to do about it beyond bellyaching on AT or to the TV????!

  20. #45
    Lets not forget about the recent teaming up of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the HSUS in Oregon. And before someone tires to defend them because of why they did it the point is that they did. I don't care if you dont think its Ethical to high fence hunt it is noones business but the PRIVATE and I stress private landowners and the hunters. If you don't like it dont do it. its not your money.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    maryland
    Posts
    1,845
    Here is a recent post of mine on another forum

    The assertion:

    "you talk about those who hunted for pure survival back then and few today hunt solely for clothing and food and they have no choice far from civilization, no vegetation around, that is the way they will live.
    you people on the other hand are not "hunters"..."

    My response:

    I disagree.

    I reject outright that I should have to engage with the community, through the economy, for any/every facet of my life, just because we now have a "civilization." There are plenty of people that do plenty of things for themselves while some do nothing and are completely reliant on others, for survival.

    Let's talk about what we need to live and how we do it.

    Some people build their own houses.
    Some buy fixers uppers and are into Do It Yourself projects.
    Some don't know how to turn a screwdriver.

    Some people cut their own firewood.
    Some have it delivered.
    Some use oil, gas, or electric heat and flip a switch.

    Some people grow all of their own food.
    Some supplement what they get from the stores with a garden.
    Some have never been on a farm but rely solely on them.

    Some people only eat meat that they kill
    Some only eat fish that they catch
    Some supplement what they get from the ranchers either a little, or a lot.
    Some have never gotten meat from anywhere but a grocery store.
    Some have never eaten meat.

    Some people home school and teach their kids everything
    Some people teach their kids more at home than they get from school.
    Some rely comletely on public education and teach their kids nothing.

    It takes all kinds.
    Do you feel equally compelled to tell all of these folks
    how their lives should be run in these other areas?

    You're not qualified to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, how I should choose "to survive" in any of these endeavors, all of which arguably define survival.

    I have the choice to listen to your suggestions.
    I did.
    I'll pass.
    Regards,

    Pete

  22. #47
    http://www.ussportsmen.org/Read1.cfm...programdocs=AH

    Add Barack Obama to your list of Arfer supporters!

    Larv

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boone NC
    Posts
    536
    This is a black and white issue. If they are not for our hunting rights you can bet your last dollar they are against us.

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    262
    I visited that ALF site or whatever man those people are crazy as hell. I understand everyone has a right to their own views and opinions but these people constantly talk about killing hunters and wishing us dead and for us to get hurt. I really really hate anti's and what they stand for but i never post on a public website that i want them dead or anything even to that extent. That right there just shows how crazy and serious these morons are. They put animals before humans.......UNLESS(key word) you are a anti then you are the next most important thing in the world besides themselves.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    South Eastern Wisconsin
    Posts
    133
    Animals do not have rights. People have the responsibility to protect animals and practice proper hunting, fishing, and farming them in a responsible humane fashion.

    animal rights activists are anti-humanists who believe that humans are evil and should be removed from the earth and play no part in the environment.

    my beliefs are that people have the responsibility to manage the world's animals through ethical hunting fishing and farming techniques.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. All You HS Supporters
    By boudreaux1 in forum Bowhunting and Bowhunter Showcases
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 24th, 2008, 10:41 PM
  2. The Supporters We Need to Have
    By BearBait13 in forum Legislation and Hunting Rights
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: August 2nd, 2007, 01:01 PM
  3. More WHA supporters
    By RAZORBACK_GIRL in forum Bowhunting and Bowhunter Showcases
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: July 25th, 2006, 04:09 PM
  4. Athletic Supporters
    By KSwhitetailer in forum Mutantville
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 18th, 2005, 11:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •