Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

Does anyone know whether Wayne Pacelle is a vegetarian?  If he isn't 
then he probably has never visited a functioning family farm or a 
slaughterhouse.  I really believe the vast majority of the anti's are
basically urban dwellers and have never seen how Frank Purdue's chickens
get under all that plastic wrap and look so nice.  I can respect someone
who is vegetarian (I don't agree with them) because they are against
killing of any animal.  But when the anti's are against hunting and
hunters just because they don't like it/them but don't have a problem
with old "betsy" taking one between the eyes as part of MacDonalds 
? billion burgers sold, then I have not repect for their stance.
There just is no balance there at all.

Gary (now is Mass. where they are everywhere)

>>                   <<< Note 1244.1 by SISDA::MCCONNAUGHEY >>>
>>                        -< former farm boy from Mich. >-

>>get under all that plastic wrap and look so nice.  I can respect someone
>>who is vegetarian (I don't agree with them) because they are against
>>killing of any animal.  But when the anti's are against hunting and

Gary,

I don't want to rathole this topic, but someone being a vegetarian and
against killing animals doesn't automatically qualify them for
respect.  Perhaps if they're against everything else that results
in the loss of animal life it would be ok, but I have yet to meet
someone like that.  Just about everything humans do impact animals
one way or another.  We wear articles of clothing made from leather,
we build homes on land that was once wildlife habitat, we clear
land to raise vegetables that once supported wildlife.  It's
just a basic fact of life that human activity negatively impacts
animals.  If you hunt, you at least are in a position to put something
back, either in the form of actively participating in conservation
programs, or tacitly from the taxes we pay on ammunition and firearm 
purchases.

If someone wants to be anti-hunting, that's their right.  I just don't
want to hear any hipocritical (sp?) BS about saving the animals.  As
a species, we are all guilty of causing the deaths of animals, and
being against hunting doesn't change that.

Just my humble opinion, of course.

Jerry

    On the bright side...
    
    The following is from 'The Vermont Sportsman' January '93 
    page 22:
    
    PETA Indictments Expected
    
    One or more federal grand juries in three states are expected to indict
    leaders of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals under the
    Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, an FBI spokesman
    told the WLFA. Juries in Michigan, Washington and Oregon are
    determining the involvement of Ingrid Newkirk and Alex Pacheco with
    the terrorist Animal Liberation Front. The pair could face proson terms
    up to 25 years, millions of dollars in fines, and forfeiture of PETA
    assets. PETA serves as ALF's publicity arm, and, according to 'The 
    New York Times,' often has advance knowledge of ALF strikes. Under
    immunity, 10 PETA members have agreed to testify about bombings
    art animal research laboritories at Michigan State, Oregon State, 
    and Washington State universities. The Congressional Office of 
    Technology Assessment declared ALF one of America's 10 most 
    dangerous terrorist organizations.

    Wildlife Legislative Fund of America
    
    
    
    

    Where does the insanity stop though?  Do we ban moustraps?  Fly-
    swatters?  Deodorant?  Penicillon?  
    
    There is simply no logic to the animal rights' argument.  If I 
    wasn't so scared of them I'd laugh at them.
    
    Scott.

    Yep.....ban hunting.  Start with whitetail deer.  The 20,000,000
    current population would decline in just a few short years to the
    300,000 indigent level prior to habitat management.  With current
    encroachment probably much less.  Save animals (deer) by condemning
    nineteen million, seven hundred thousand to die of humane (starvation)
    and natural (slow, painful, suffering) death.
    
    Good idea...............NOT!
    

    I saw this article in the Dec. 1992 issue of Field and Stream.  I think
    that it hits the nail on the head in regards to those obnoxious anti's
    and non-hunters/fishermen.  I would say that it hold true for most
    states:  
    
    *** Field and Stream  December 1992 East Edition Page 7 ***
    
    o The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources owns fifty
    wildlife management areas throughout the state.  A recent survey shows
    that public use of these areas is ten times greater by those who do not
    hunt or fish than by those that do.  All the funds for the purchase and
    management of these areas are provided by sportsmen, through licenses
    and permit fees.  Not one penny is contributed by non-hunters and
    fishermen.
    
    Need I saw more!!!!!
    
    Kevin
    

>>   <<< Note 1244.2 by CSC32::J_HENSON "Faster than a speeding ticket" >>>
>>                           -< a different view >-

>>I don't want to rathole this topic, but someone being a vegetarian and
>>against killing animals doesn't automatically qualify them for
>>respect.  Perhaps if they're against everything else that results
>>in the loss of animal life it would be ok, but I have yet to meet
>>someone like that.  Just about everything humans do impact animals

Jerry,

No rathole intended, I mearly was saying I (me, myself) can respect someone's
view against hunting/fishing because they 1. don't like the killing aspect,
and 2. they don't eat the meat because the animal/fish/whatever was a living
thing (the Alber Switzer(sp?) outlook).  The terrorist mentioned are nothing
more than criminals and should be prosecuted as such.  If most of the anti's
had as much concern for their neighbor, fellow humans, as they do for animals
this old world might be a better place to live in than it is today.

The key to animal survival is NOT to ban hunting/fishing but to MANAGE it,
such as buying the need land, lakes,etc for wildlife habitat.  As was already
mentioned in this note, this is being funded by sportsmen/women.  Anti's don't
want to manage they want hapenstance, ie overgrazing, starvation, etc. to rule.

Here in Mass. I think our wildlife management officials do a good job (for the
most part) as they probably do in other states of Managing the state's wild-
life.  The problem we have here (I've noticed it anyway) is the Boston/Cambridge
elite (the nose bleed people), you know the kind, their noses are always in the
air and they are forever looking down on the common man as some poor sole who
really doesn't have a clue about life.  These are the ones who have never 
milked a cow, plucked a chicken, or shoveled manure and have all the political 
power and want to make to laws to govern the very things they know the least
about.  

I lump true sportsmen into the same category as farmers because they do know
the value and purpose of animals.

Sorry for rambling, it just bothers me to see the mentality that is exhibited 
by many in anti camp.

Gary - farm boy who would like to go back someday