Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    I'm Colo.; didn't see the show--What type of harrassment were they
    refering too?  And what kind of unconstitutional grounds were they
    talking about?  Hell, anybody can talk--Let them...Ignorance is bliss,
    for those who don't know what they are talking about...But get in my
    way when I'm hunting....OOOpps!!
    
    The Last statement is cheap as well....I'm just getting to the point of
    wanting to get real nasty--Sick and tired of all the ANTI's--Why don't
    they take up a real cause..Child abuse,drug abuse...Racism...anything
    but leave me and MY GUARANTEED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO BEAR ARMS and
    and the PRIVILAGES TO HUNT THE HELL ALONE!!!...COMPLETELY FLAMED!
    
    
    JEFF...
    

    I did not see the news story but I can give some more info...

    My parents live in Newtown,Ct (northern Fairfeild County) and I was
    visiting them two weekends ago.  In the Sunday newspaper there was a
    story on the front page about this hunter harassment.  The courts
    decided (not sure at which appeal level) that the Ct hunter
    harassment laws were unconstitutional, so a group of anti-hunting
    (animal activists) decided to disrupt some hunter's afternoon in a local
    State Forest.  The press followed the activists through the woods as
    they harassed some hunters.  The story appeared unbiased - that is it
    reported the situation and interviewed both the hunter and the
    activists.  When they found a hunter(s) they would suround him, make
    remarks ("how could you kill...") and in general just spoil his day off.

    I have restrained myself on going off the deep end on this one because
    it deeply bothers me that someone can spoil one of the few days a year
    that I can get out and hunt.  I have pondered what I would do if it were
    to happen to me and I decided that I would just pack up and leave and
    find another place - no words exchanged.  As an individual, I cannot
    protect my right (unfortunately) to hunt, but as a member of various
    hunting organizations and lobbies I feel that we still have the upper
    hand.  My largest concern is the trend in this country towards extreme
    liberal ideologies and the lack of traditional attitudes and
    philosophies.  [for example (aside from hunting), a group of
    anti-nuclear/war activists won a JURY case in which they were charged with
    tresppassing on GTE property - their defense was that they were doing
    the right thing to help better our society == my point, even juries of
    our peers can't protect us from some these attitudes]

    Kevin.

    	If it were me, I wouldn't say a word to them, but just start
    walking in. Let them follow me, and walk for a few hours. If they're
    still with me, sit down and have lunch, and let them watch. I'd
    walk their a**es off, and if they couldn't stay with me (and they
    probably couldn't) they could find their own way out. It gets mighty
    hard going in them Rockies :^)
    
    	George 

    I'd be delighted to take my anti friends for a little upland bird
    hunting. I'd march them directly into a place we call "The Hell Cover."
   
    The Hell Cover without the protection of heavy hunting clothes? Ouch,
    ouch, ouch...
    
    Doug

    	My favorite place is called Suicide Gulch  :^)
    
    		George

     
    They have saved the seals
    They have saved the whales
    They are trying to save the deer,birds,ext
    
    BUT yet, every year thousands of women kill there own kids.(Abortion)
    I ask you, where are the priorities?
    
    
    

    
    			If this is ignored it won't go away, it'll get
    	worse. I did see the news broadcast on CBS and the hunters where
    	chased after surrounded and then taunted and the most ridiculous
    	mehtode of being asked unbelivable stupid questions. These people
    	may feel that getting in the way of persons direction of fire,
    	when a guy is trying to handle a loaded gun safely, is the right
    	thing to do. The first time there is an accident, the media
        will have a field day. And if a person snaps and happens to
        open fire on some idiot the next possible knee-jerk reaction will
    	be to ban hunting it's just to dangerous.
        
    
    		I do not think I'll ignore this, there is to much to
       lose.
       
    					Gary

    	The right to hunt may be a moot point anyway. The pro-crime (also
    known as anti-gun) crowd are working on a second step after banning
    the so-called assault weapons. You see, your 30-06 and .308 rifles
    are much more powerful than the evil assault weapons. The next step
    will be for a certain senator to hold up a 30-06 alongside a .223
    and point out that they've already banned the .223 because it is so
    destructive, and yet this much more powerful round is readily available
    to the public. He will tell everyone that this is the type of
    ammunition used in bolt action,scoped rifles that are the weapon of
    choice of international assasins and snipers.
    
    Disclaimer: this is just speculation on my part, but I really believe
    that it will happen.
    
    	Unless we all get together, get off our duffs and fight all of
    these radical groups actively, we'll lose it all. 
    
    	George

    
    I wonder what I would do. I guess I should get the names of the
    individuals or better yet hopefully they all belong to an association.
    Perhaps a cease and desist(sp) order from the courts would then
    help. Also hunting land that is posted with the owners permission
    would do the trick. In that way you can become a ward of the owner.
    Part of your responsibility being to report to the owner anyone
    who is trespassing.  The walking deep into the woods and then loosing
    them idea does bring a smile to my face.
    
    
    Tom

    I guess in the event that some anti-gun nuts were following me into
    the brush, I'd let them follow as long as they could.  And if they
    were falling behind, I'd slow down.  Hopefully, they'd follow me
    about 5-10 miles in.  You know, where you can find packs of wild 
    dogs.  Maybe some wild boar.  Or a bobcat...yeah, that's it, a 
    bobcat!  And I'd be the only one there with a gun.  "Well protest
    me now!  And by the way, I'm sure that these wild animals will just
    love to hear about all the wonderful things that you're doing for
    them."  I could have some fun with this.  
    
    Glenn   

    Gee, one of the notes on scents indicates that human urine works
    as well as Tink's and that maybe you should pee on your
    surroundings to attract bucks.  Well, if the anti's insist on
    being part of the surroundings... :-)

	Mike

    For some strange reason I was thinking about the problem on the way
    into work this morning.I came up with an idea that made me chuckle.
    I thought if this harrassment got to be a problem in Mass. I'd buy
    a water pistol (one with good range) and fill it with some nice
    skunk scent.When these idiots start to bitch at me I'd give'em a
    few squirts (low shots,no sense letting them harrass me with a law suit
    ).It may not make them go away but I'd sure enjoy knowing no one will
    come near them for a while.Besides maybe it will cover up their scent
    and not scare away the deer.
    
    Just a thought. Hmmmmm
    
    Craig
    

    
    	re.12
    
    		Now that's thinking! 
    
    	re.-2? 
    	
    		piss you off, piss on them, good.
    
    		Non-violent solutions are good, keep it up.
    
    
    				Gary

    	Sounds like fun Craig, but chances are that you'd get sued for at
    least assault, and some of them may claim that they thought that it
    was a "real" gun and try to get you for assault with a deadly weapon.
    You know how sympathetic our judges are to this sort of thing these
    days. But of course if it's just you and one of them then.......
    
    	George

 It's much easier to simply take them into terrain that they are unsuited for.
A nice wet swamp or briar patch will slow down all but the most obstinate of
antis. They are generally more hot air than anything else, anyway.

 The Doctah

          <<< LOSER::DISK$LOSER_PUB:[NOTES$LIBRARY]FIREARMS.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< God made man, but Sam Colt made men equal >-
================================================================================
Note 2873.0                    Hunter harrassment                     No replies
LILAC::ZORE "I'm the NRA!"                           67 lines  22-NOV-1989 09:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The NRA recently entered this in Compuserve, I thought the readership here 
would be interested (I don't follow HUNTING, if someone wants to copy this 
there that's ok). - Rich


#: 94366 S15/NRA
    16-Nov-89  10:57:07
Sb: #NRA Commends Hunters
Fm: National Rifle Assoc. 76247,2177
To: all

For Further Information, contact Dennis Eggers 202/828-6248

The NRA realizes that this year - more than ever before - hunters deserve our
congratulations.  Based on reports received by the NRA Hunter Services Division
and NRA Field Representatives, hunters throughout the country have been
demonstrating uncommon restraint and patience when confronted by anti-hunting
or animal rights activists bent on disrupting a lawful activity.

In every reported case, the targeted hunters have refused to lower themselves
to the same level of disrespect, irresponsibility and lawlessness as the
protestors.  While the examples of excellent behavior and citizenship displayed
by the affected hunters have been continually overlooked and ignored, those who
oppose any use of our natural resources - including hunting and fishing - get
most of the publicity.

The NRA notes a number of ironies in this unproductive situation.  The small
anti-hunting and -fishing groups are often very vocal and choose to speak
through numerous court actions.  As a result, government agencies tasked with
managing natural resources are forced to divert a large amount of money, staff
and efforts from important wildlife programs.

Hunters and fishermen prefer to be left alone to enjoy nature, test their
outdoor skills and provide wild game for their families.  These more than 50
million sportsmen and women would never force their way of life on others, yet
a small minority insists on imposing its standards and values.  More and more
individual hunters are being confronted, obstructed and chided by
unknowledgeable - however sincere - zealots dressed up in their synthetics and
plastics.  Another irony.  No leather, of course, but their clothing is
manufactured by an industry that uses a non-renewable resource, pollutes our
waters, drains our marshes and contributes to acid rain - all of which kill
wildlife.

The NRA makes the following suggestions to hunters and fishermen who find
themselves in one of these uncomfortable situations: (1) Remember that your
behavior, either right or wrong, will represent all 18.5 million hunters. (2)
Do not attempt to convert anti-hunters or discuss reason or logic, which will
be a waste of time.  (3) Keep cool, ignore derogatory comments and try to
distance yourself.  (4) Find out if your state is one of the 37 that has a
hunter-harassment law.  (5)  If you are unable to get away from the protestors,
find a way to contact the appropriate law enforcement authority. (6) Remember
that law enforcement officers must protect constitutional rights and enforce
the laws equally for both hunters and anti-hunters.  (7) Remember that your
commitment to hunting is stronger than their opposition. There is always
another day and place during the season.

Hunters are reminded that the probability of controntations increases on public
property and opening days and even more so during special, permit-type hunts. 
Avoiding conflict will reduce the animal rights' groups ability to achieve
their primary goal - publicity.

Again, the NRA congratulates American hunters for doing such a great job. Keep
it up!  And remember - if the majority of Americans actually agreed with their
position, it would not be news.

END

    Does anyone know what the reason the court gave for striking the
    law down?  Perhaps the law can be rewritten so that the offending
    language is deleted.  This is important because the Anti's will
    now turn to other states and their laws.  Is there a part of the
    NRA that would handle this?
    
    It seems to me that there must be some harrassment law, that this
    harrassment is a form of assault?  Perhaps we should join the
    ACLU, Friends of the Animals, etc. so they will stop attacking our
    Second Amendment rights and traditional privileges.
    
    
    What you are seeing is part of a general trend that will ensure
    that, in most Eastern States, there will be no public land open
    to sport hunting by the year 2000.
    
    Bill
    

    
    Just thought I should rejuvenate this note. :-)
    
    There was a "debate" in Sunday's Nashua Telegraph (New Hampshire) about
    this very point.  The debate was in the form of a yes/no essay to a
    question. The question was something like "Is it legal to harass
    hunters" (don't remeber the wording).
    
    I am against hunter harassment, but from just these 2 opinions, I
    would have to say the anti hunter side won hands down. Here's why.
    
    The harassment is ok side was written by a women (from her jail cell 
    she mentioned) who was arrested for hunter harassment and refused to
    pay the fine, she therefore had to go to jail for a few days.
    Her points in teh article were basically that she was just exercising 
    her right to free speach on public land. She was arrested at a WMA
    for talking to a hunter.  She tried to refrain from the typical hunting
    is bad standpoint, and based everything on her constitutional right to
    free speach on public land. By talking with the hunter she was not 
    endangering anything or anyone so her free speach should not be 
    restricted.
    
    The other side was written by someone from the NRA. In my opinion he
    came off as someone who did not know what he was doing.  His entire 
    argument was based on: 1) She only did it to get arrested and 2) the
    hunter was on a WMA, which is funded by hunters, so they should be able
    to hunt there. 
    
    I personally don't know how I would argue that I believe hunter
    harassment is wrong, if all they are doing is walking on private land
    and talking then I can't really say they are doing anything wrong
    (except violating the harassment laws, which they say are
    unconstitutional.)  If it is private land it is another story, but on 
    public land how can you stop them, they have just as much right to be 
    on the land and use it as you do.  If they phsysically interfere this
    is also another situation.
    
    Like others in this conference I have a few places I could lead them
    that they would have a hard time getting out of .:-)
    
    --Bob
    
    

 It would seem that depriving someone of the use of public land via antagonism
ought to be capable of being outlawed. If an ethnic group used a state park or
other public land for an outing, and a rival group decided to preclude their use
of the land by placing many loudspeakers playing anti-minority slogans and loud
music such that the aforementioned outing was ruined, the ACLU would have a
series of injunctions slapped on the rival group. Yet no one wants to stand up 
for hunters. 

 Free speech does not give one the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater
because free speech is not absolute. I see no reason why this same line of 
reasoning cannot be used to prevent hunter harassment on constitutional grounds.

 The Doctah

    I remember reading that there is an organization which wrote model
    legislation for anti-harrassment laws. Unfortunately Connnecticut
    did *not* follow this model. I don't believe any state law which
    followed the model has been successfully challenged.
    
    Will look it up.

    
    Doctah (re .19)
    
    It is true that freedom of speach is not absolute, in fact in the
    anti's article she stated this, and then said she agrees it should not
    be absolute, she went so far as to use the same analogy as you used
    about yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  What she was trying to say
    , and effectively I thought, was that she was endangering no one, and
    using  public land, hence she should be able to talk to this guy.
    
    If in fact she was not harassing by yelling at him, calling names but
    just walking along talking to him, why should this not be covered by
    her freedom of speach. It could be argued that since the hunter did not
    want to talk to her it was truely harassment, but this seems weak to
    me.
    
    I agree that there should be anti-harassment laws, we are doing nothing
    illegal/immoral (in my eyes at least) by hunting, in fact we are
    helping manage the wildlife, alot of hunters, myself included are
    hunting more for the relaxation of being outdoors, in the woods than 
    to kill something. These people are infringing on my right to pursue a
    legal hobby.
    
    That last paragraph is hopefully to insure you that I am not just
    trying to cause trouble, but I truely would like to have a way to 
    deal with these people if the need arises.
    
    --Bob
    

>    If in fact she was not harassing by yelling at him, calling names but
>    just walking along talking to him, why should this not be covered by
>    her freedom of speach. It could be argued that since the hunter did not
>    want to talk to her it was truely harassment, but this seems weak to
>    me.

 Ever been proselytized in an airport by some religious fanatic? Even if they
do not yell at you, they are harrassing you if they try to convince you to
join their religion by following you and continuing to talk to you after you
make it clear they are unwelcome. I see little difference between that action
and those of the anti-hunters. If one can be outlawed, so can the other (perhaps
wishful thinking, but it feels right to me).

>    That last paragraph is hopefully to insure you that I am not just
>    trying to cause trouble, but I truely would like to have a way to 
>    deal with these people if the need arises.

 I hear you. I have not yet been harrassed by any anti-s, and I don't know how
I would react. I tend to believe it would be a more emotional response than
I'd like (I may end up yelling and screaming right back at them instead of 
ignoring them and going about my business.) I really like the idea of making
them follow me into the worst areas (where they are probably unprepared to
go and underdressed). The other good possibility is getting to the hunting area
before dawn and getting set up in the dark. By the time the antis start making
noise, we'd already be positioned for the game they'd scare our way. (Obviously,
I'd thank them for assisting me as well as reporting them as being unlicensed
and conducting a deer drive. :-) :-0

 The Doctah

    Haven't been harrassed yet myself. Don't look forward to it.
    Might do something stupid. Will attempt to ignore anybody who
    just talks at me and keep walking. Heaven help 'em if they put a
    hand on me. Will defend self/react/over-react. Guarantee Bambi-
    lover will sh*t pants :-)

In NY you do not have to be in the woods with a gun or bow to be considered
a hunter. All you have to do is harass or chase game. What about the other
states?? I suggest a new tactic. Lets look up the technical definition for
hunting. When the antis show up call the game warden and report them for
hunting without a license (1st amendment does not protect you against using
noise to harass or chase game).

    	Best not to argue with those intent on harrassing you while
    your hunting, just tie em to a tree and continue on.... heh...heh..heh
    

    
    
    Here's one that works if they get up close and personal (in your face).  
    (This works real well if you do have a good cold or a sinus infection
    or if you are a smoker.  Just start coughing.  It's really nice if you
    can get stuff up while you are coughing. :')  
    
    
    
    Mike