PETA officials collide with deer
By Gene Mueller
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

There's plenty of laughter and a little sadness in the hunting community over an incident involving a deer that collided with an automobile driven by two animal rights campaigners who belong to the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. The folks who worship at the altar of animals now want to sue a New Jersey game department over the incident, claiming it's the state's fault that it happened. Top Stories
� Pilot believed alive, held in Iraq
� Arafat to get room to move
� Maryland snags No. 1 seed in the East
� Blair girds Britons to strike Iraq
� U.S. resists putting GIs among warlords
� Arts group threatens to sue boycott leaders
� Teacher plans a gift of gratitude

No, this is not an April Fool's joke � April is still weeks away. Besides, our newspaper frowns on such things. This is the real deal.
On Feb.14, PETA legal counsel Matthew Penzer sent a letter to Bob McDowell, director of the New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife, that said, "Pursuant to New Jersey state law, this will serve as notice that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Dan Shannon and Jay Kelly each reserves the right to bring an action for damages and/or injuries sustained in an automobile crash on November 16, 2001. Shortly before 1 o'clock in the morning on that date, while driving a Honda Civic belonging to PETA and while returning from a PETA [anti-hunt] campaigning tour, southbound on the New Jersey Turnpike, a deer darted out in front of the car and a collision resulted. The collision occurred at or near mile marker 15.4 in Woolwich Township, Gloucester County. Damage to the car was severe, resulting in a repair bill that exceeded $6,000.00 and loss of use of the car for nearly two months. The total amount of damages is, as yet, unknown.
"PETA, Mr. Shannon and Mr. Kelly believe that this collision, which occurred near the start of New Jersey's hunting season, was caused by the state's Department of Environmental Protection Fish and Wildlife Division and the Fish and Game Council as a result of their deer management program, which includes, in certain circumstances, an affirmative effort to increase deer populations. Despite the known dangers an increased deer population poses to motorists in the state, the Division and Council actively assist in increasing the deer population for the purpose of enhancing hunting opportunities and license revenues. The result, as was the case here, is a significant number of auto-deer collisions each year, causing significant injuries and property damage."
Penzer even went so far as to write a pretty good press release rehashing the deer vs. car incident that said, in part, "PETA saw red � and it wasn't just the blood of the animal [that was] fleeing hunters' guns."
We have no idea where Penzer received his information about the deer fleeing hunters' guns. How could he know that, since even he said the crash occurred "near" the start of the New Jersey deer season. In other words, the hunt had not begun, so where are the deer "fleeing hunters' guns" coming from? And is he aware that during cool November days, a deer more often than not will be involved in chasing after a potential mate, not worrying so much about hunters.
On three separate occasions during the past deer rut, which normally coincides with the Maryland and Virginia hunting seasons that I participate in, I spotted bucks with their noses to the ground, ignoring everything and everybody as they followed the scent of a female. One of the bucks did this with such haste that I nearly collided with him 200 yards from my home a week before the gun season began. In other words, there were no hunters "chasing" anything, but we might have had a dead deer all the same.
Not only that, one must wonder whether PETA is aware that 99 percent of all deer hunters wait for their deer, not chase them, knowing that would be sheer folly. Additionally, when a hunter happens upon a deer and it runs off, it will stop running within a couple hundred yards, so the argument that a gun-carrying hunter was doing his thing before the season began and so close to one of the busiest highways in the nation is more than suspect.
Now here comes the inevitable Walt Disney-zation of animals: PETA says it "opposes the fear, the disruption of herd members' relationships and the bloodshed suffered by the deer on grounds of cruelty to animals."
Deer aren't much interested in an elephant-style mentality that includes deep, emotional care for related herd members. To talk of "relationships" among deer is stretching things. And as far as the bloodshed is concerned, it is indeed a pity that the deer died and nobody thought to try and save as many steaks and roasts as possible but instead allowed good venison to go to waste.
What a pity.

� Look for Gene Mueller's Outdoors column every Sunday and Wednesday and his Fishing Report every Friday only in The Washington Times. E-mail: gmueller@washingtontimes.com.

------------------
saeed@ emirates.net.ae

www.accuratereloading.com

hahaah,

I smell conspiracy....

Has anyone seen that car insurance commercial with the guy jogging that runs into the deer standing in his path? I'll think of PETA every time I see that ad from now on... good laugh

I hope the New Jersey judicial system throws this out.

I wonder if it was a nice buck? Maybe the local hunting association should sue PETA for limiting the local white tail deer gene pool by killing this nice deer with their car?

Rockhead

I'd sue PETA, Bet they didn't have a tag for it.....

Saeed

My question.

By the way these PETA guys, they weren't driving a Jeep were they?

Ban Jeeps. Killers of deer.

Nitro

------------------
Nitro@NitroExpress.com
NitroExpress.com

Their argument claims that a managed hunting season and bag limits INCREASES wildlife herds...huh, I thought that hunting DECREASED animal numbers.

So which is it PETA? Huh?

------------------
Wendell Reich
Hunter's Quest International

Why not sue the PETA people for careless driving? Many collosions with wild animals are because of ignorant drivers, who do not observe the surroundings of the road.

Fritz

------------------
...the mark of the hunter is the ability to get close.

If animals have rights they also have culpability.

Let them name the deer as the defendant.

If the deer is deceased they should sue its estate for damages.

[This message has been edited by steve y (edited 03-14-2002).]

I like the way you think, Steve y!

Just the same, hat's off to that young buck for, "taking one for the team!" We do so much to combat the PETA folk, it's good to finally see the deer population lending a hand!

------------------
>>>--------------------->
Toxophilie and carry a bent stick.
<---------------------<<<

Steve Y:
Justice Douglas agreed with you. In Sierra Club vs. Morton he suggested we should give
'trees standing to sue'
and this would solve lots of our legal problems. It's a two edged sword, but a good idea, because it gives our great natural resources advocates, against destruction.
If it's one thing I have learned around here, it's that hunters are intrested in conservation, so they have something to fire at in the future.

gs

The article said that the accident happened at one in the morning. Pretty slim chance of a hunter out at that time. I wonder if the driver was given a breath test? Just a thought. Ken

Was this one of those "drink beer, not milk" rallies?

You know there was a time when animal were tried in Court, of course this was back in the Dark Ages, Back in those by gone days that some would like to return. PETA is going to have some real problems with the IRS and the AG. Can you Say REICO!

These fools should be turned loose in Tsavo for a few months. My guess some lion would make them a quick lunch.