Peta gets hunting outlawed

Question:
What would you do

Choices:
Hang up my guns because thats the way it is and I woud never break the law
Find a way to hunt any way Legal or not.
Just travel to other places where it is still legal.

 

Needs to be two choices, I would find a way legal or not to keep on hunting, but traveling somewhere else might be more PC.

The UK government banned fox hunting, it more popular than ever and one day the law will be repealed.

I would turn in my passport and move. Lots of serious hunting cultures on this rock. No need to live here at all. Heck I could then hunt polar bear and bring it home, or better yet I could hunt Jaguar.

Whether sport hunting has a future is a subject I've heard kicked around since the early 1970s on hunting trips, in deer camps, duck clubs, field trials, gun shows and at local gun shops.

But, first of all, you need to understand something. Peta is not the whole anti hunting movement. It's a strictly johnny come late in something that started way before with other groups who are not into bizarre, extremist methods and views or into being willing to say and do anything to grab a headline. That's what made them, along with members of the media who are on that side and are the major cheerleaders for it.

In other words we pay that one group way too much attention here.

Organized anti hunting and its twin mirror image, anti gun, arose from the 1960s Cultural Revolution. As did most of the country's present ills. The list of those is long.

But anti hunting sentiment in general was there LONG before that.

For those who don't know, sport hunting is something that always as far back as the early 1900s, has only been tolerated by the general public. But the average non hunter is willing to leave us be because they know we eat what we shoot.

And we'll be OK for a long time to come until the eventual and inevitable catches up to us, being demographic changes and urbanization and loss of a place for wildlife and hunting to exist.

quote:

Originally posted by p dog shooter:
Peta gets hunting outlawed

Sitting Bull:

"I will remain what I am until I die, a hunter, and when there are no buffalo or other game I will send my children to hunt and live on prairie mice, for where an Indian is shut up in one place his body becomes weak. "

those who buy their food wrapped in plastic
will never rule me.

+1 ravenr!!!

To answer the question directly, if hunting were outlawed (presumedly in the USA) I'd go someplace where it was still legal. If nothing else I'd shoot the flies off of dog poop with rubber bands. I am a hunter and it is a simple imperative that I participate in hunting some form or another.

With that said I do not believe that hunting will, or even can, be completely banned. Hunting will certainly become increasingly difficult and more expensive as time goes on. As a result the percentage of people willing and able to do it will go down but there will always be hunting opportunities of some kind. Look at the UK, a small island with 30 million people and a politically correct, socialist culture. There are many hunters ("stalkers") over there and most of them are middle-class. Hunting is not just royals or millionaires as we Americans have been led to believe.

Don't rule out a resurgance of interest. The "foodie" movement and movies like "The Hunger Games" are sparking an interest in hunting among young and/or "urbanized" people.

The anti-hunting movement is nothing new. An early and well-known example of anti-hunting and deep-ecology propaganda is Disney's "Bambi," released in 1942. (Paul McCartney of the Beatles credits his passion for animal rights and vegan lifestyle to "Bambi.") We do have our work cut out for us but I think nature is on our side.

PETA, is merely the radical, highly visible, fanatical arm of HSUS. HUS is the real enemy, especially with all their orchestrations behind the scenes.

HSUS offers rational solutions, their terms, compared to PETA's radical .

The one thing hunters have to keep away from, is trying to link huntying with the Second Ammendment. Those are completely seperate issues.

The Second ammendment deals with the Rights of Private Citizens to own firearms.

There is NO National Right To Hunt law in America.

CHC:

You are right about PETA and HSUS. PETA's mission is made clear to everyone by their publicity stunts but HSUS is insidious. Countless people have been hoodwinked into believing that HSUS is associated with the local animal shelters. We need to get the message out that the HSUS has NOTHING to do with helping dogs and cats!

From what I have observed and heard, the HSUS hurts the local shelters more than anything else.

The money I would save from hunting, I would throw in a kitty for a lawsuit to fight them, the only way they know how. Imagine how many dollars, if just 1/4 of the hunters took the dollars they spent in one year, donated to a legal fund, just how much that would be. It would bury PETA!

quote:

The one thing hunters have to keep away from, is trying to link huntying with the Second Ammendment. Those are completely seperate issues

Absolutely correct! Not all gun owners and shooters support hunting. A few I've encountered are opposed to what we do, while staunchly defending their right to own and carry firearms.

Bill Quimby

If hunting was banned it would take about 3-4 years to be totally overrun with deer and the ban woud hae to be repealed. Think of the hunting opportunities following the ban

quote:

it would take about 3-4 years to be totally overrun with deer and the ban woud hae to be repealed.

That is not the way it would work. Hunting would never be re-instated, goverment em[ployed culling/cropping officetrs would be sent forth to exterminate a set percentage of the herd annualy and would definitely not be hunting and the general public would never be involved.

I'd move to Mexico I can do the same thing there as I do here and I'd only have to move about an hour away. Wouldn't phase me a bit!!!

quote:

That is not the way it would work. Hunting would never be re-instated, goverment em[ployed culling/cropping officetrs would be sent forth to exterminate a set percentage of the herd annualy and would definitely not be hunting and the general public would never be involved.

And they'd get into feeding them something to prevent being able to re-produce or darting them with something communicable that would spread between deer to do the same on a big scale. Wipe them out in other words.

Make no mistake, radical vegetarian interests much prefer no animals at all over any hunting allowed.

If PETA has its way, we would all be vegetarians!

Check these out and tell me long HSUS is going to last followed by PETA.

http://humanewatch.org/index.p...ociety_of_the_unite/

http://humanewatch.org/index.p...s/category/circuses/

http://neveryetmelted.com/cate...-united-states-hsus/

There was a recent thread about that situation Scriptus. The problem that many folks, especially non-Americans are not totally aware of, is the amount of political clout HSUS has managed to amass within our national political system.

PETA is recognised as a radical group of ineffectual, off the wall crack pots that HSUS uses as a comedy act.

PETA makes outlandish grandstand manuvers and then HSUS comes along with more reasoned and thoughtful options.

They are all working together behind the scenes to achieve a common set of objectives and deep down, those objectives in actuality have nothing to do with animasl welfare, but with human control, which unfortunately, fits right in with the goals of individuals in both of Americas major political parties.

IFAW banned hunting in an entire country and has kept it that way.

What has HSUS done except kill more dogs than Korea?
And PETA allows exhibitionists a safe environment to expose themselves.

Focus people.

Screw it.Shoot the Peta people and eat them.

The biggest single killer of animals in the Continental US is the Humane Society.

No?

Look it up, don't just disagree!

quote:

They are all working together behind the scenes to achieve a common set of objectives and deep down, those objectives in actuality have nothing to do with animasl welfare, but with human control, which unfortunately, fits right in with the goals of individuals in both of Americas major political parties.

I can support everything you said, except the part about "both...political parties".

I will go out on a slight limb and venture an educated guess that the overwhelming vote of individuals of the HSUS and peta will go for the current incumbent and democrat office holders in general.

The dems advertise for donations on their websites. And they share in common the burning desire for "human control".

The Democrats see and treat the radical vegetarianism/anti hunting/anti gun interests as natural constituencies and allies along with their other recognized bloc voting units. This has been the case for several decades, the reason being that those involved in these agendas are among the most liberal of all on everything. They take pride in being out on the leading edge of that.

None of this has ever been a source of votes for Republicans.

quote:

Originally posted by poprivit:
The biggest single killer of animals in the Continental US is the Humane Society. No? Look it up, don't just disagree!

There are several national organizations that call themselves humane societies, including the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), the American Humane Association (AHA) and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), and perhaps others.

Most local shelters, which do euthanize dogs and cats, are associated with the AHA whose official position is neutral on ethical hunting.

Our greatest enemy is HSUS. It does not operate a single animal shelter and has never euthanized animals. It spends more money on lobbying than it does on animal welfare.

Bill Quimby

quote:

None of this has ever been a source of votes for Republicans.

Do not bet your ass on that Shack, do a little research before making a comment. I am not trying to offend you or be patronizing, but republicans are just as guilty as democrats on this issue.

quote:

but republicans are just as guilty as democrats on this issue.

It's far more urban vs rural than partisan, and it's a mistake for our side to make these issues partisan.

We've been burned by Republicans and we've had Democrats go to the wall for us. Been there, seen it happen.

Both sides are at fault Skinner. If you don't understand that, you are part of the problem.

quote:

If you don't understand that, you are part of the problem.

I understand it quite well, thanks. Not sure you do when I say that it is a mistake to make the issue partisan or that it is more the urban/rural divide that negatively affects our interests.

Sorry, I was thinking about Shack's comments and did not really pay attention to what you had written.

You are correct. It is not and should not be viewed as a Democrat vs Republican issue, but one of people living in urban areas that have no real ties to the land/nature/wildlife/livestock vs. people from rural areas that do have direct ties to the things I listed above.

My apologies for not paying better attention.

quote:

do a little research before making a comment

My research is "libs" I've been stuck with knowing and being around since the 1970s. I first started getting acquainted with them in the early '70s in college. Typically young gals. Typically vegetarian. With crazy views on the subject. Even in those days. Anti Vietnam war anti military of course. All with no exceptions Democrat. I could even tell you which Democrats they liked best. Any I discussed politics with either hated the GOP that I always voted for and some wanted nothing more to do with me after they found out my voting habits. One referred to my preferences as "just plain backward". Another I told of being an ROTC officer in high school, and she says "where did you grow up, Sparta, or some place".

When they weren't doing vegetarianism they were down at the federal building protesting the war or leaving trails of pot smoke wafting across the campus or busying themselves with civil rights protests or attending Communist rallies with guest speakers like Tom Hayden (google him some time).

These in today's world are your peta and hsus. And they aren't Republicans.

I could fast forward thru the decades and introduce to later editions or generations of this same stuff, but won't weary everyone.

Well, just one more "research" example. This from the early '80s. There was a point when I was real interested in not only hunting and fishing but anything do do with the outdoors, hiking, camping, exploring the Miss. River, scuba (and ocean treasure hunting), and canoeing. Anyway, I had heard of the Sierra Club and thought, well, maybe I can meet some like minded folks there. I knew absolutely nothing about them, and so tried going to one of their meetings. Based on faulty assumptions in other words.

I never attented another.

What I found was a bunch of little political activists with no real interest in the outdoors at all. I didn't see a single prospective canoe trip in the whole bunch. It was still more little vegetarians who hated hunting and guns. They even made jokes about us. There was one that stuck in my mind because I found it offensive, "what's the four letter word we use to describe sport hunters?".

These were not Republicans. Trust me. I guarantee you on that.

Basically it's a whole movement I'm talking about, not just a few nationally known individuals.

But, if you or anyone can show us Republicans in large numbers who are like that, then sure, let's see your research too.

We will just have to agree to disagree, simply because Republicans are not all the same. As Skinner stated, trying to make this a "Partisan" issue does not really address the issue.

With your analogy it is like stating ALL republicans are baptists and ALL democrats are methodists, that sim[ply is not correct.