Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    
    I saw on CNN the other day where a group of anti's were demonstrating
    at Sea World. It seems they didn't like the idea of the killer whales
    being trained to do tricks and they thought the tank was too small for
    the whales. I thought geesh now these clowns are against this too, then
    I thought that maybe this just might help us out a bit. MAybe with them
    doing things like this the American public will realize that the anti's
    are just plain nuts and are going way too far. Hopefully they will soon
    hang themselves given enough rope.
    
    As for getting involved, these jokers go out into the woods "Hoping"
    that someone takes a poke at them or better yet shoot one of them. It
    would give the the mayter (sp?) they want and more ammo to use on us.
    My best advice is dont confront them in the woods, walk the other way,
    if they want to follow you just call it  a day and have some fun. Like
    head for the nearest swamp andlet them follow you, stop for lunch eat
    it in front of them, then don't tell them the way out of the woods.
    Stay till dark, you can always lose them then and find your way out
    with a flashlight later. 
    
                             Walt

    My response is as follows. I hunt private land.  You can bet your 
    last dollar that if an anti hunter trespasses on our property, there
    will be serious vandalism to there vehicle prior to me getting the
    local sheriff to press full charges against them.  I believe in freedom
    of speech, as long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others.
    Once you have violated my space, look out!  If you thought Mt. St.
    Helens was an explosion, that is nothing compared to the fury  that
    I possess.  It goes beyond just anti hunters, it's anyone invading my
    space.  With all the kooks out there now a days, I cherish my rights,
    freedoms, and privacy, and I WILL DEFEND THEM AGAINST ANYONE OR
    ANYTHING!  And by any means possible, first legal, and if need be,
    illegal.  I fight fire with fire. 
    
    I will first try being a gentleman and be legal about matters, and if
    that doesn't work, the hell with them, you can't reason with them, so
    do what need be.
    
    off of my soapbox for now.
    
    Bob
    

    RE:2 
    Coming from another hunter, the fury that you possess appears on the 
    extreme side to me.

    Re: 2
    
    	Please do not resort to vandalism, it only lowers you to their
    level. If they tresspass, use the law to the fullest extent. I know
    anti's can be a royal pain in the butt, but try to use the legal
    system.
    
    Red

    
    Not to get on anyone's case but the statement "I hunt on private land
    thus If I have problems I'll get the law ect" is not pro-active. You
    may find out that YOU can't hunt PERIOD (NOT on PUBLIC, NOT on PRIVATE
    nor any other form of hunting). If we as hunter remain maintain this
    mental attitude our rights or our children's rights (priviliges to hunt)
    maybe one-day be denyed.
    
    A more pro-active approach that might prove usefull is as follows:
    
    	-) Learn from your adversary! These groups have been very sucessful
    	   in obtaining support from elected official simply by writting 
    	   letters (often and many). These groups have "Letter writting
    	   seminars and often at animal rights conventions require people
    	   who attend to write letters (on the spot).
    
    	   I'm not advising that everytime you got to your gun shop that
    	   you must write a letter to your state legistator, but what I
    	   am suggesting is when hunters go to NRA hunting safety course that
           we include (require) that the canidates to write two letters; One
    	   supporting hunting, and the other supporting the right
    	   to bear arms. The instructor can have sample forms letter and
    	   can assign this as homework.  If every NRA instructor did this
    	   nation wide more elected officals should take notice.
    
    Peter
    

    
    re .6
    
    Who/What defines your "right" to hunt?
    
    Just curious.
    
    Kevin

    
    some points I would like to try and make about the last few:
    
    1) No human has the right to hunt. It is a priviledge. You use to have
    the right to hunt to survive, this is no longer a right (to hunt)
    
    2) Even if it is just you and him, he wants the confrontation so he
    can press charges against you and show the world that hunters are
    hot heads
    
    3) Mandatory letter writing is a bad idea. For better or worse there
    are people who are not totally pro-gun and I believe it is wrong to
    force someone to write a letter. They have every right to remain
    silent.  You also are assuming that every person in a hunter 
    safety class is a hunter and is pro-gun. This may not be true, they
    may be in there to learn about hunting.  I would suggest that part
    of the class be dedicated to informing the people of the danger
    the anti's posses and then informing them how to handle a 
    confrontaton and also options for stopping them, these options
    definetly include writing letters, you can even give them 
    examples or fill in the blank type letters, but forcing them
    to send in the letter is wrong.
    
    It would be a better world if all hunters were in the pro-gun side.
    Fact is many are against the dreaded "assault weapon", even if it
    is a media myth.
    
    --Bob
    

    .2 and .6 is very scary stuff and would do more harm to hunters than
    any anti could.  You may want to reconsider the comment about "homos"
    as well.
    
    Mark.

    Kevin (and Bob),
    
    I hope I didn't sound like Chicken Little. I'm just attempting to get
    people's awarness levels up and attempt to get more people involved.
    
    Our rights to hunt is really defined by the general public (majority).
    Not today, nor tomorrow but sometime down the road if enough people
    cry out (unchecked) aganist hunting the laws could change to reflect
    public opinion. I personnel don't see this happening but I believe as
    time goes on we will see it harder to hunt on public/private lands for 
    one reason or another. Case in point, The stopping of an Arizona Elk
    Hunt, Stopping of a Grizzly Bear hunt in Montana are two good examples
    that something like this could happen. 
    
    Bob your point is well taken regarding that some hunters are not always
    Pro-gun. As you suggested perhaps we could use letter writting as a tool
    (we can give them the forms, names ect) but it would be up to the 
    individuals.
    
    Pete

    FWIW, I really like the idea of "forcing" (for lack of a better word)
    all hunters to write a couple of letters during a hunter safety course.
    
    This is the way I see it, Hunter safety should be mandatory to getting
    a license, for a couple of reasons.  First and foremost it would
    educate the unknowing thereby making the woods a safer place, (at least
    thats it's goal).  The second reason is that it would force any Anti who
    decides to buy a license for the sole purpose of harassing other
    hunters, to take the course... 
    
    If while they take the course it becomes necessary to write a couple of
    letters to congress critters to pass the course, the Anti's would be 
    biting the hand that feeds them.  If they refuse to write the
    letter they don't pass the course and would be unable to buy a license!
    
    Thats how you fight fire with fire...  Sounds kinda far-fetched, but it
    may be a way to put a stop to some of the BS...
    
    Fra
    
    ditto what a few others said... Bob, tone it down several decibels,
    gotta maintain a calm rational when you deal with these people. 

    Excuse my ignorance, but why would a person want to take a mandatory
    "hunter" (implies that a firearm will be used) safety course if they were
    not pro-gun???
    
    To get a bow license you need to take a Bowhunter safety course in some
    states... i can see where being pro-gun might make a difference here.
    
    am i missing the bus here???
    
    Hey I don't like to write term papers, but if I want the college
    credits for the course, I do em... why is it any different for hunter
    safety...
    
    Fra

    
    
      Fra,
    
      during my years of hunter ed instructor class's, I cant tell you the
    number of PEOPLE (not only women) that took the class just to learn how
    to safely handle a Firearm. so not all people in a hunter ed class are
    there to get a hunting license. some will never hunt or shoot a gun.
    
       We did discuss the issues around being harrassed in the woods by
    anti hunters. this comes to be a very touchy subject, each situation
    will be diferent so there is really no blanket way to handle each
    situation, although just ignoreing the person and walking away is
    probably the best thing to do., after all they try to get a person so 
    mad that they get punched then the anti will run to the police and cry
    assault, and guess who gets arrested? the hunter! dont give them what
    they want, you can always hunt someplace else or there another day. 
          
         I know the last paragraph sounds chicken sh@t, but you have to
    remember these people can really get to you and you are carrying a
    weapon, and all they want to do is have you point the gun at them then
    it become agravated assault with a weapon, and none of us wants that to 
    happen.
    
        As far as makeing it manditory to write a letter, I dont think you 
    would ever see it, but that would have its benifits I guess. The people 
    in this country have it easy to get a hunting license, there is a
    country over seas that the hunter ed class involves writing a lengthy 
    term paper as to what the impact of their hunting will serve to the 
    environment. it kinda makes the person realize whether or not they want
    to hunt.
    
           I dont mean to flame ya fra, we all need to stick together.
    
                                                        Lee
    

    
    	I'd bet everyone in here would be surprised to find out how many
    hunters really "feel" the way Bob does.  I'm not sure if someone has
    already suggested this, but there are ways to make yourself heard
    without writing a bunch of letters etc... (not that writing won't help
    - It's probably the best way)  Just join pro-hunter groups such as
    the NRA, Vermont's SAVE, etc...  Part of the reason the NRA is
    effective is because there are so many people involved (numbers count).
    
    	As per the "Right" to hunt argument.  My brain tells me I have a
    "right" to hunt.  I have a "right" to go buy a license (having been
    through the safety courses) and not being a convicted felon can own
    a firearm.  I can drive down the road and hunt state or federal land
    without permission or ask some landowner if I can hunt his/her
    property, Walk through the woods during x season and attempt to bag x.
    
    	I got this thing about "privilege" that tells me I'm a little kid
    and if I beg long enough I'll get a piece of candy.  If the anti's
    can prove their case over time (which I seriously doubt with the type
    of tactics they use), and they outlaw hunting....  I'll probably still
    go out every October and try to find a deer with my bow.  A bow shoots
    quietly, you're camouflaged, and nobody will probably ever find you in
    the woods.    Unless of course common sense tells me the reason hunting
    was stopped was because the species was endangered.  
    
    Ok, I've got my armour on, let em fly.....  Rob

    
    
    whats the difference between hunting and fishing?
    
    most of us hunters equally enjoy fishing,
    
    so it must be time for the anti's to start an anti fishing
    organization..
    
    maybe there is such an organization, i never heard of one.
    
    it would'nt suprize me with that up tight busy body mentality..
    the anti hunter/anti gun posess.....
    
    mike
    

    
    Mike,
    
        Unless the ole brain is going, I seem to remember a time when some
    nice anti types here in MA tried to make it illegal to use live bait
    to catch fish. Also all the talk about not putting lead in the
    enviornment could have some impact on fishing. There was also a judge
    in Italy(?) who ruled on fishing and it was unfavorable. Anyone else
    remember what he said?  They are out there.
    
                                               Walt

I hope no one minds if I make a slight detour here, but there was a
news story yesterday (Dan Blather, non the less) that is sort of 
relevant to this topic.

In New Jersey, Trenton, I believe, the town has outlawed hunting.
Apparently, they did this some time ago.  Now, they are up to their
you_know_what in deer.  There are about 3 deer/car collisions per
week, and some of the residents have come to think of them as nothing
more that "big rats" (this was a quote).  The population has grown
so much there is a real problem.

There has been some hunting re-introduced into the area, but there
are still areas where hunting is not allowed.  There are also people
who oppose hunting and consider it an issue of convenience more than
anything else.  Also (my opinion), it seems that some of the deer
live in such highly populated areas that it just wouldn't be safe
to use firearms.  Perhaps archery hunts would make sense.

Anyway, the story seemed relatively sane.  It actually came
across as an objective, well balanced report.  It also provides a
pretty good example of what happens when you quit managing an urban
game population.  I wonder if the antis consider this a victory?

Jerry

    how about starting A.A. (anti anti)?  Mr. moderator had to hide my note
    .15 due to its explicit remarks, sorry mr moderator.  I will be calm
    and rational now.   Reference .14   THANKS!  I disagree with some notes
    saying hunting is a privilage.  I believe it is a right.  I pay my
    license fees, I pay my taxes, I pay my way, that is a right.  A
    privilage is if I am a good boy, maybe i will have the privilage to
    hunt.  As far as anti's go, they are not really a problem down here in 
    the south, yet.  I have had no confrontations with them.  To many
    people down here hunt.  I am a member of national organizations, where
    my annual dues HOPEFULLY take care of the polticians in d.c.  You know,
    money under the table.    Who knows how one will handle a confrontation
    with an anti, hopefully it will be short and sweet.
    
    bob
    

    A friend of mine (non DEC) offered the following suggestion:
    
    	o The NRA has a wallet size fact card that from time to time 
    	he has pulled out in-order to set some people straight with regard
    	to some crime statistics (Pro-gun) choice.
    
    	He is suggesting that as hunters we should put one together. The
    	wallet card could contain a number of fact regarding what hunters
    	do, ie licences, tax on ammo buys wetlands. Hunting regulates game
    	populations, ect. 
    
    	Many hunter may know this already. However the people you are 
    	addressing may not. Give them the card. The more educated a person
        is the better they will be at making decisions.
    
    	o As for Anit/hunter confrontaions (this one is for Bob) my friend
    	has indicated that he plans on taking his kid's squirt gun. You
        know the kind that shoot 50' and hold about a gallon and a half. It
        would be hard for someone to remain in the Late Oct. Mountains
        soaking wet. Besides can you image an Anti going to the authorities
    	and attempting to press charges.         
    	
        Pete
                       

    re. fishing - the antis are against it, but it's pretty hard to
    get a lot of people emotional about a worm or a fish. By concentrating
    on cute little bunnies and bambis, they get maximum emotional
    effectiveness from their campaigns.
    
    re. the New Jersey item on TV, remember that the antis are
    fundamentally *anti-human* and feel that people have no right
    to take land from the poor bambis, so, if bambi eats their
    shrubs, tough. Believe me, they will oppose hunting even when
    the deer are horribly overcrowded. (Witness the Quabbin hunt.)

    
    
    Your opinion is fine.  But that's all it is.  Show me where, in
    writing, this right is?  I don't care what you call it, priveledge,
    etc., but it certainly isn't any right guaranteed by the Constitution
    of this country.  From a pure legal standpoint its just us against
    them, there isn't any higher order guranteeing us a 'right' to hunt.
    
    Execpet in VT, where our state constitution does gurantee the right to
    "hunt, fish, and fowl."  But I don't see that protecting us either,
    (US Constitution probably takes precedence) there are towns in VT that are 
    anti-hunting, and have banned the practice altogether.  Can you see the
    ACLU backing us up in a fight?  They won't do it with 2nd ammendment
    rights...we're on our own.
    
    Hey I'm on your side, just playing the devil's advocate to your
    position.  
    
    Kevin
    
      

    
    
    
    We don't even have to take away your "rights" in-order to stop you
    from hunting. Out West hunting mainly takes place on public lands,
    ie National Forest, BLM lands, ect. Where would you hunt if these
    public lands were closed for hunting? The State may have some area
    but we would be left to hunt on private lands. The quality of hunting
    would go down (Too many hunters/area). 
    
    
    Notice here that I didn't touch your rights.  I just said that hunting
    in the National Forest/Park has been temp. closed.
    
    Pete

    
    re .12
    
    Fra, when I say some hunters are not pro-gun I mean that they are not
    pro-"all guns". I know of several hunters who use either bolts or 
    standard semi's (like Remington 7400 class) and feel that the dreaded
    assault weapons should be banned for all the reasons HCI et al 
    stress. In fact I have an uncle who was violently against the NRA,
    told me I should take the NRA sticker off my truck. Seems all he
    knew was what the media told him. After explaining the truth, with 
    some backup from his brother (another of my uncles) he changed his
    mind on the NRA but still wanted assault weapons banned. I showed him
    the stats from the FBI about very few being confiscated. THis coupled
    with the wording in the law about "similar functioning" convinced him
    that my gun, as well as his sons could easily be banned under the law.
    
    I then tried to get him to extrapolate out to bolt actions being next
    since they are the deadly sniper rifles, he didn't go for it, but I 
    guess 2 out of 3 ain't bad.
    
    it is the old divide and conquer method.
    
    re .whatever about squirt gun.
    
    I seem to recall this being suggested before in either here or the
    firearms conference. If I remember right it was decided this is a 
    bad idea since the anti may think its a gun and can still press
    gun charges (is this true??)
    
    re .23
    
    Another way they can stop hunting is to change rules, one of which
    is as you say, close national forest land etc.
    
    In NH some rep wants to raise the minimum distance from an occupied 
    dwelling to 1000 feet. This mean something like 6 houses permile makes
    it to crowded to hunt. 
    
    They don't have to stop hunting, just make it very hard to find a 
    place. Soon over crowding starts and then people will stop hunting
    (I probably would).
    
    --Bob
    
    PS Just for the record, I am in no way anti-gun, you want to own it, 
    go for it.

    
    	I am not one to preach, but you might paraphrase for your
    	Uncle
    
    	When they came for the pistols I said nothing, because I didn't own
    a pistol.
    
    	When they came for the semi-autos, I said nothing, because I didn't
    own a semi auto.
    
    	When they came for the Shotguns, I said nothing because I didn't
    own a shotgun.
    
    	And when they came for my hunting rifle, I looked around, and there
    was no one to help me.
    
    		Chuck
    

    Just a note...
    
      Rights are "not granted" by the Constitution. The "Bill of Rights" is 
    the government "recognizing" those rights in writing...
    
    
      This is something that is confused very often...
    
      I too feel that I have a "right" to hunt, but, as with everything if
    the right is abused, or considered to NOT be a right, then the "recog-
    nition" of that right by those in charge will cease to exist. That is
    the problem....
    
    
    Joe

    Regarding the squirt gun ambush....not a smart idea.  This past year a
    youth was shot and killed by the proprietor of the store in Concord NH 
    during a holdup.  He was pointing a squirt gun at the owner.
    
    The owner was exonerated from all charges and if memory serves, he was 
    justifed in attempting to defend himself.
    
    I believe you can be legally charged with assault whether or not the gun 
    is real.
    
    Besides, if the anti was packing a weapon legally, who knows how he'd
    react if you pointed a squirt gun at him.
    
    Very stupid idea.
    
    Mark.

    re:.0
    >>> What do you think? What are your idea's to get involved? 

    After reading this note and similiar ones, the various magazine and news
    articles of late I know what I can do... get off my duff and wallet and
    contribute to some of the various organizations that are working for
    hunters (and/or wildlife in general).  Can't say I've been very good
    about it in the past.  Tonight I write out a couple of checks.  I haven't
    been very good about writing either.  I hate to write, but I enjoy hunting
    so I'd better learn to write.

    -.20 mentioned a facts card.  Thats a good idea if an anti or the other
    person is willing to think.  Problem I've found with most anti-anything
    types is they are 99% emotional.  I have never been able to have any kind
    of rational discussion with an emotional person.  On top of that, their
    emotional state makes them down right stupid.
    
    One recent example of the stupidity I find slightly humorous.  Was
    reading the "letters from our readers" section of the latest Colorado
    Outdoors magazine (put out by Colo. Div. of Wildlife).  Some old bitty
    wrote saying to cancel her subscription because of the "support" the mag
    was putting out for hunting.  Guess the title of the mag was misleading to
    the poor thing.  Otherwise, why would anyone who doesn't like hunting
    subscribe to a magazine put out by the DOW?  BTW - something similiar
    occurs at least in every other issue and I see it all the time in other
    similiar magazines.

    Another sad fact about the anti's stupidity is this magazine is full of
    the stuff that should make a reasonable person understand hunting and
    wildlife management go hand in hand.  And, that hunters are the primary
    reason there is wildlife to be seen today.  Guess the old gal didn't read
    enough issues or
    
    Emotional people just can't read, see, hear, think......
    
    Jerry

>                      <<< Note 1129.28 by SFC01::HAYTER >>>
>                         -< anti's = emotional = DUMB >-

>   On top of that, their emotional state makes them down right stupid.
    
While I certainly agree that their emotional state doesn't exactly 
allow them to logically examine all the benefits of hunting, I 
hesitate to categorize anti's as stupid.  It's the old "never 
underestimate your enemy" maxim that I'm thinking of here.  I hope 
you weren't trying to say that they are stupid in the purely 
intellectual sense because that could be dangerous.


RE: 22

State constitutions can grant/create rights in addition to those 
granted or recognized by the US Constitution.  They just can't take 
any away.  That's a shame - I'd love to suspend the one about cruel 
and unusual punishment for a while.  We could solve the drug problem, 
child molesters and sex offenders, murderers...  Unfortunately there 
are others who'd like to abolish #2, so I guess I have to take the 
whole package.

Scott

    Webster's definition of stupid:  slow to apprehend;  showing a lack of
    intelligence;  uninteresting;  dull;
    
    sounds like a anti to me!  only  because of the lack of intelligence. 
    The reason i say that is because they are closed minded in the point
    of view of wildlife management as it pertains to hunting.
    
    narrowminded;  lacking breadth of view or tolerance;  bigoted.
    Anti, if you ask me.
    
    P.S.  i was a doe on the way to work this morning.  she was beautiful,
    yet she was scared, almost got hit by a truck.  246 days until bow
    season.  hah!
    
    bob
    

    the last one should have read, "I saw a doe", not i was a doe.
    bob
    

re: .29
I definitely do not regard anti's as intellectually stupid.  Unfortunately,
in this case, many of the people(?) carrying the anti-hunting banner are
educated. Too well educated at times.

I once knew a girl who was pretty bright but emotionally had no sense.  Told
her about all the deer starving in the Kaibab forest, asked who was going to
finance the birth control pills when there were no more hunters supporting the
G&F depts., and a few other pointed facts.  Her response (if you can't guess)
was "well I don't care, I just don't like the thought of those deer being
shot".  I view people like that as a waste of good oxygen.

Anyway, glad you pointed out the potentially dangerous opinion I was
expressing.  As you point out, we can't afford to underestimate these people.

Jerry

    This is a very interesting topic. For the record, the antis are not
    just anti hunting, they are anti animal use.  This means hunting, food,
    medical testing, pets, clothing, etc.  They are concentrating on
    hunters because they are a minority of the total population (trappers
    and medical research places are also getting hit heavily!).  The fellow
    from down south that has not yet felt their wrath should still be
    concerned, every time they win any sort of a battle it gives them
    renewed enthusiasm.
    
    I really liked the squirt gun idea but understand the implications of
    using a gun shaped object.  A small squirt bottle would not be confused
    with a weapon, and if loaded with the right "ammo" could be effective
    and lighter to carry.  Say skunk scent or buck lure for instance.
    
    A real good organization to support in the battle against the antis
    (other wise known as the lunatic fringe)  is Putting People First,4401
    Connecticut Ave.NW, Suite 310-A, Washington, DC 20008.  This is a
    non-profit organization organized to fight the animal rights extremists
    at all fronts.  By not being specifically "hunting" oriented they have
    a much broader support base.  All outdoorsmen/outdoorsladies are
    represented in their interests, however they also are supported by
    industries (and interest groups) dealing with medical research,
    farming, ranching, fur trade, cosmetics, animal training, and the food
    industry.  That covers a lot of ground. Membership is only $15.00 per
    year (including monthly newsletters, action reports, and special
    notices.  They have done some great things for all animal use groups
    already and have begun to generate some real respect with the antis
    (not fondness mind you- just respect!).  With more support they will do
    even more.  Anyone out there who has any interest in this topic will
    thoroughly enjoy the PPF newsletters.  If you hunt (or just like to eat
    meat!) you should join the battle.  These fanatics want to make us all
    vegetarians and force us to wear plastic clothing.  They believe we
    shouldn't have pets and have no concern about the adverse effects to
    the environment from the petro-chemical industry that creates the
    plastic clothing. They just believe that animals have equal rights with
    humans and want everything re-evaluated based on that belief.
    
    Thanks for listening.
    
    Roy

>>                     <<< Note 1129.33 by ICS::GOODWIN_C >>>
>>                       -< antis-more than anti hunting >-

>>    vegetarians and force us to wear plastic clothing.  They believe we
>>  shouldn't have pets and have no concern about the adverse effects to

It's worse than that.  They don't even want us to call them "pets".
There was an article in the paper this weekend about some of the
animal rights groups (PETA, American Humane Society, and some others)
in which they are now advocating that we don't call our pets "pets".
Instead, we should call them "animal companions".  Not only that,
but we should no longer refer to ourselves as our "animal companion's"
owner or master, but rather as their "caretaker" or some equally
non-offensive word.  One guy even suggested that we think of ourselves
as "human companion to a non-human companion".

When I read the article, I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.  On
first blush, it seems awfully silly.  And, with them going to this
sort of extreme, it may make it harder for them to be taken seriously.

On the other hand, they take themselves extremely seriously, and this
is a crusade for them.  One of my hopes is that they will go overboard
to such an extreme that they completely and irreversibly discredit
themselves.

Jerry

P.S.  I also read that the Japanese are very interested in importing
prairie dogs.  Can you just imagine what will happen if some of them
get loose over there and are successful.  They may sink the whole,
danged country!  All kidding aside, there are some important enviromental
issues that the Japanese will have to consider.

                     <<< Note 1129.33 by ICS::GOODWIN_C >>>

>    I really liked the squirt gun idea but understand the implications of
>    using a gun shaped object.  A small squirt bottle would not be confused
>    with a weapon, and if loaded with the right "ammo" could be effective
>    and lighter to carry.  Say skunk scent or buck lure for instance.
    
    This is no different than PETA throwing paint on people wearing fur
    coats.
    
    Mark.

    
    Mark that reminds  of the time one of the Anti groups said that
    with fake fur available people should wear that. I often wondered
    how they (the anti's) could tell the difference right before the paint
    was thrown or they spit on someone.
    
    Also saw Bob Barker on Sally J Rapheal, said he wouldn't spit on anyone
    but if someone else wanted to it was o.k. with him...GGRrrrrr....
    
                                       Walt

>    This is no different than PETA throwing paint on people wearing fur
>    coats.

 It is different. A person wearing a fur coat is doing nothing to someone who
hates fur except existing. A person interfering with a hunt is doing something
active against someone who is engaged in a lawful activity. That's one 
difference. Another difference is that they may be breaking the law (depending
on whether the action is occurring in a real state or not.)

 I don't support the action in either case, but there is definitely a
difference. One can be construed as a defensive action, at least. The other
is uncompromisingly offensive.

       Another difference is that the fur coat (potentially expensive)
    would most likely be ruined, the skunk scent would create an annoyance
    to the recipient but no damage.  It really shouldn't be done in any
    case, we should remain totally passive in these situations, however it
    is only normal to have temptations.  I was just acknowledging one of mine.
    
    Roy.

    In one of my replies I suggested the use of a Hunter's Fact Card
    as one possible way to combat Anti. Looks like the NRA has one.
    It can be ordered as follows:
    
    	800-535-9982 (NRA sales dept)
    	NRA Hunter's Fact Card 		order # H13N0151
    
    	Other relavant info
    
    	Animal Rights Terrorists and Their    # NI3N0160
    	War against Mainstream America
    
    	Hunting's Furture? ...Its up to you   # HE3N0104
    
    Put a hunter's fact card in your wallet. The next time you find
    yourself in a conversation with an Anti, remove the card and
    enlighten them, afterwards ask them what their solution is (and 
    ask for a real anwser).
    
    Happy Hunting,
    
    Peter

    This is a little old, but I haven't had time to get in here all week.
    
    Last Friday (the day before the Mass Pheasant season opened) the 11:00
    channel 7 news had a brief story about the humane society objecting
    to stocking pheasants on the Cape Cod seashore (I think that was the
    location).  I gritted my teeth, but I thought the coverage was pretty
    objective.
    
    They had an interview with the Humane Society guy, he said it was time
    for society to stop enjoying blood sports, etc; that the introduction
    of an exotic species was going to destory the environment there, and
    they they were stocking tame birds.
    
    They then had a brief interview with someone from the Fish & Game, who
    casually stated that they had been stocking pheasants there for 30
    years and would probably have noticed any damage to the environment
    by now.  They then ended by walking through the cover with the cameras
    and admiting that they couldn't find any of the pheasants.
    
    Mark,