dchenbecker said:
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/envir_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.