I urge all of you to read this. There are hidden agenda's going on right under your nose.

The secret world inside animal rights groups

Many Thanks for posting that info. HSUS is the parent organization of PETA. PETA are the radicals making all the noise and HSUS presents its self as the rational approach, their goals and agenda are the same.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
Many Thanks for posting that info. HSUS is the parent organization of PETA. PETA are the radicals making all the noise and HSUS presents its self as the rational approach, their goals and agenda are the same.

There is no connection between HSUS and PETA. In fact, they actually compete against one another for donations and members.

Perhaps you're thinking of the Fund for Animals, which was merged into HSUS a while back. Wayne Pacelle, HSUS's current CEO, came up through the ranks with FFA.

Possibly, but as with all or most organizations the size and scope of the HSUS, all we have to rely on is their propaganda on the situatution.

They may say they compete for donations, but can anyone verify that?

Both organizations have the same agenda. While the more radical element will donate to PETA, the less radical element will donate to HSUS.

All of the money is going to the same place for the same cause.

You may be right with your assessment Tony, but I do not believe those folks are not in cahoots with each othder.

Tony, technically speaking, you are correct. However, Crazyhorse has a very valid point. As I've tried to point out elsewhere on AR, one of our biggest problems as hunters defending our rights is that we tear each other's approach to hunting apart with self imposed divisions such as "Bowhunt Only", "Bait vs. No Bait", etc. You name it, someone will disagree with it.

On the other hand, it seems that all the "anti" groups work together and I may be naive to the situation but I haven't seen them divide their forces. They attack us in unity.

We openly discredit our own organizations that work on our behalf. A perfect example is the SCI / Anti SCI bashing that goes on here. People tend to focus on the very few who are caught up in the Inner Circles and what not as being counter to conservation principles. Maybe or maybe not. That is a subject that would take quite a bit of discussion beyond my intent of this post. I tend to defend SCI based on their advocacy on the local, regional, national, and international level in defending hunters rights.

Sorry about that, I certainly didn't mean to hijack the thread to SCI. I just wanted to point out that we should focus on banding together to combat the anti's instead of discrediting each other as hunters and conservationists.

Also, I apologize for jumping in here at this point as my internet connection is not allowing me to connect to Mr. Keith's link so I haven't read the article. I am aware of some of the lengths they will go to however to achieve their means. And I will try to open the link, read it and post on this topic again shortly.

Todd

Ok guys, I was finally able to open the link and read it. Very enlightening. It is truly amazing to see the level they are out maneuvering us on. All this is going on while we work against ourselves! I don't have the answers but somehow we need to get it together and soon!

Mr. Keith, I hope you don't mind if I repost the link to the African Hunting forum.

Todd

Todd, the heart of the problem lies in the mentality involved. The Anti's regardless of the organization they belong to, have a clearly defined goal/objective and all of them regardless of their methods focus on that goal/objective, ending hunting and after that all human use or ownership of animals/birds.

It is a hive mentality and all of them work for the goal that they have set for the hive.

Hunters and fishermen being able to think and act independent of such mental limitations, place walls around themselves individually or around the groups that share a like/similar concept of what hunting/fishing means to them.

Whether it is the traditional archery vs. compound bows, trophy only hunters vs. hunters that just like hunting and don't mind what they kill vs. meat hunters that are only after meat. Catch and keep fishermen vs. catch and release only fishermen.

Purists/elitists vs. average everyday hunters/fishermen.

Because hunters and fishermen are independent by nature and believe strongly in the way they view hunting and fishing and how they believe the sports should be undertaken, getting them to unite will take a miracle. I am not sure that will ever happen.

Not trying to be negative or preach doom and gloom, but I firmly believe things have gone too far and it is just a matter of time, I do not believe it will happen in my life time, or at least I hope it does not, but with the worlds society in the shape it is in, I feel that hunting and fishing as we know it will now, will be gone by 2050, if it lasts that long.

I just don't see the hunting and fishing public being able to put aside their differences and presenting a united force to try and keep our sports alive.

Randall and Todd,

I've been writing about these groups for more than two decades, and I agree with all of the points stated, as far as ALL the AR organizations working together and what their ultimate goal is.

However, as you mentioned, Todd, I corrected a "technical" distinction in regards to the actual relationship between PETA and HSUS. While the latter has lots of "children" with various names, PETA ain't one of them.

I understand what you are saying about PETA Tony. I'm lumping them together based on their agenda, not structure. That's what I meant about being "technically" right. I wasn't trying to pick the statement apart but rather my way of agreeing with you. I probably could have stated it better!

Crazyhorse, I think you are probably right as well. I'm going to go down fighting to the end though. I hope my kids take up the fight. I've introduced them the outdoors at a high level, (couple of trips to Africa for each). Whether or not they will take up the cause remains to be seen as they are only 20 and 17 right now.

Hat's off to both of you guys as well as David. We are definitely on the same page here!

Cheers,

Todd

The reality of the situation is that all of the anti groups have the same base agenda and they have a head start.

Todd, my blessings, post it anywhere, and bump on occasion. We're in a fight fella's, like no other. 24/7/365 we're being attacked on all fronts; gun ownership, hunting, game lands, ammo, anything they can do to end our sports, they will do. In all my life I have never faced such vile vermin as we face today. Nevermind posting, calling or emailing a person with a death threat is a felony, they will do it on a public forum with such vulgarity you won't believe unless you've been there. The fight is in our laps, we best start standing united on all fronts and give no ground. Last night my lecture was "Stop humanizing animals!" As long as we buy into the terms: Babies/baby, Mother/Mommy, Daddy for animals, we're giving into the anti's agenda: humanize animals. Give them souls, feelings... hell, build them a church!
I thank each of you (and guys like Tony who write about this a lot) for taking the time to read and talk about. Now if we can motivate our comrades. Cheers, David

quote:

Now if we can motivate our comrades.

How realistic to believe that hunters are going to put aside their differences on the way they view the sport and develope a united front?

There have been 11 replies made by 4 members yet there have been 349 views.

How many of us are willing to lay aside our prejudices toward each other and the way we individually view or practice hunting?

True Crazyhorse. When the Indians united, they won their biggest battle at the Little Big Horn. When they scattered and became divided, they wound up on reservations. We either unite or fall. I'll go down fighting; alone maybe but fighting.

I do all I can to support hunting in any way. Think all hunters should know who their enemies are. Thanks for posting.

I wrote the following more than 20 years ago for my LAST SHOT column.


ARE WE OUR WORST ENEMIES?

"Hi Bob, this is Eddie. I wanna ask the know-nothin' from PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) if she really knows what she's talkin' about. I get tired of these asses telling me how to live, and I can tell she doesn't know a goddamned thing about hunting or hunters."

The phone clicked.

I sat wondering why the radio talk-show host hadn't used his 7-second delay button to bleep the expletives. Soon after, he made it clear. "If that's the typical hunter, folks, it's easy to see why people are against them . If most hunters act like this redneck idiot who defend their SPORT by vehemently attacking those who oppose them, it's a pretty sad state of affairs."

The PETA person didn't reply directly to the caller's comments. Instead, she simply said, "What can I say? That gentleman provided all the evidence to show the mentality we're up against and why we are right in opposing this and other barbaric pastimes like trapping."

Eddie was the first caller out of the box. Over the next hour, despite the comments of the host and guest, two other hunters mimicked Eddie's mentality but at least avoided the language.

Understandably, having these men represent hunters in public left me a bit miffed and reminded me of the adage, "With friends like this, who needs enemies." And anyone who is not a hunter might simply assume ALL hunters are of the same mentality. Fortunately -- at least I hope --- Eddie and his clones are much rarer. Yet too many Eddies make it easy to understand why we often have to ask ourselves what exactly is it that people misunderstand about hunters and hunting

From the get-go, we need to realize hunting involves death; a successful hunt means KILLING a living creature. Certainly it's not evil, especially to those who see Nature as a grand scheme and acts by the intertwined parts of Nature normally impact other things. It has been that way for millenniums, and Man’s role has impacts because he must feed, cloth and house himself to continue his existence. As we kill the deer, the quail kills an insect and the eagle kills the quail. It's this intertwining that makes the world go'round, so to speak.

But when it comes to understanding hunting and hunters, a large number of folks like those who belong to PETA feel NO animals, including domestic ones, need to be killed. Instead, they would prefer everyone exist on a diet of broccoli and bean sprouts. Sure, they are extremist, but they still feel morally right. And this is where we get in trouble.

For instance, how many times have you heard a hunter say, "Our license money supports wildlife. We must hunt to control overpopulation otherwise deer would be eating all the petunias in your garden."

Truth be known, those opposed to hunting can shoot so many holes in this argument that it would eventually look like a slab of pegboard.

Animal rights advocates don't care how much money we spend on habitat and wildlife, how much hunters love and appreciate animals or that hunting serves as an effective management tool. They only want to know if sport hunting is a moral form of recreation. They look at the habitat/money issue as nothing more than our efforts to provide more targets for our own self-gratification. They hear the claims of possible overpopulation and comment about how we INVENT hunting where none exists by planting game.

Certainly in the latter case, we provide many examples in the form of hundreds of stocked bird-shooting preserves where pheasant, quail and other birds are frequently released minutes before the hunters arrive, private "hunting" clubs on the east coast where they raise ducks to be released and shot over hunters' blinds, and the private big-game operations where hunters take mini "safaris" to hunt exotic game from all over the world. In some cases, the hunting is quite like the proverbial "shooting fish in a barrel," with the animals fenced in small areas.

Another argument addresses the methods. If killing game to prevent their starving to death or eating Mabel's petunias is the reason we hunt, why have archery and muzzleloader seasons? Success is low, no doubt due to the less effective, more primitive weapons.

Frankly, I get quite perplexed when I have to defend any of the above as any more than recreation, and I certainly don't use necessity as a motive. It's like calling pornography art in the same sense as a painting by one of the masters.

Nope, it's quite simple. The controversy about hunting is a MORAL issue with the animal rights folks -- one the radicals on both sides will debate for years. Trying to justify it with biology might work in some cases, but like Eddie, that justification can become one of our worst enemies. And the sooner we realize that the better off we'll be at battling their efforts to outlaw hunting.

At the Outdoor Writers of America Association's annual conference this year, Wayne Pacelle of Friends For Animals, another extremist animal-rights organization, asked, "Since when has hunting ethics been reduced to questions of mere biology and sustainability? Isn't there a sportsman's code of ethics? Aren't there ethical precepts that guide hunting behavior? Aren't there some humane standards that should be observed?”

It's something to think about, especially when we as hunters should be concerned at how the non-hunters who sit on the fence will listen to Pacelle and perhaps help decide the fate of hunting someday. If we lose these people, we lose hunting.

----- 30 -----

Thanks Tony. Pacelle is now kingpin at the HSUS is he not? Fat lifestyle and all, has he.

Yup, that he is, David.

At that writer's conference, Pacelle debated a guy who was vehemently defending hunting back then. I can't recall his name now (senility, ya know ) but I think he was a psychiatrist who then wrote a book. At the time, he was quite popular and often quoted by the hunting folks.

Anyway, Pacelle, who is adept at speaking as O'Bama is, ate his lunch, making him sound like an idiot. It was kind of embarassing to listen to it.

When I get some time, I'll try to track down the guy's name.

Found it! The guy's name was James Swan. His book is In Defense of Hunting."

I agree with Tony that the arguements presented by the various anti groups are based on their concept of morals, but they also use a large dose of emotions mixed in. On the subject of morals and its related concept ethics, how or who decides the morals/ethics of the group?

In Tony's response above, several different concepts of "Hunting" were mentioned, who decides which ones are morally/ethically correct?

If we are going to use the idea of qkick/clean/humane kills as the guiding force, then all hunting should be done from blinds overlooking a feeder at a measured 110 yards, so that basically the "hunter' will be as efficient/humane as the folks working on the kill floor at a slaughter house. How many want to have hunting reduced to that?

How many of us that enjoy hunting, the outdoors, want to have the way we go about our sport arbitrarily governed by someone that may decide everyone has to use a 30-06 and not shots over 100 yards is to be taken and that "trophy" hunting only is no longer permitted?

Placating the anti's is not going to buy us anything. A little time maybe as they decide that each fom of hunting available to us is morally/ethically wrong and it is closed off. I am not a fan of Ted Nugent by any means, but sometimes folks do have to take a stand and say enough is enough.

We are not going to change the mind of the anti's, Period. Hunters are Not all going to jump on the same band wagon and support forms of hunting they do not believe in, Period.

As in any issue, 10% of the people are stronly for whatever the issue is about and 10% of the people are strongly against it. It is that 80% of the people that are undecided either way that need to be convinced that hunting is something that needs to be allowed to continue.

How do we go about that? I don't think the "In Your Face" attitude is going to help a great deal with the average citizen, but what if the base message Nugent is trying to get across was toned down and offered in a less aggresive manner? Present the role of hunting as a conservation tool, not thru the funds put into the sport, but from the standpoint that some species do not have enough natural predators, and due to shrinking habitats the numbers of those species too easily reach numbers that are above the carrying capacity of the habitat that is available.

The bad part of that scenario and the one hunters will balk at, is that means they are going to have to give in to shooting what is best for the population numbers, not what looks best on the wall. How many are ready to buy into that?

Another area that needs work is the image hunters are presenting to the public in general. We don't need to try and present ourselves in the manner of polite country gentlemen/ladies, because that is not ho we are. Conversely, we do not need to come across as arrested developement adolecent rednecks that appear to only be concerned with high 5's, thumb's up, victory dances showing little or no real appreciation for the game we kill and the act that is involved.

The one thing that everyone needs to keep in mind, the anti's do not care how we hunt or what hunting means to us on an individual basis, they want ALL of it stopped period.

We need to quit saying anything about hunting anything from a blind or stand, at long or short range, with or without dogs/baits/calls, high fence/low fence/no fence, crossbow/longbow/recurve/compound, handgun/rifle/shotgun or spear. That stuff does not matter to the anti's, because it is all a form of hunting and they want it stopped.

To reach their goal it is going to require legislation. Hunters as a group need to focus their attention on the folks that help such legislation become laws, that 80% of the folks that really have no opinion or at least do not have an unfavorable opinion about hunting. Our goal as a group should be not alienating those folks and presenting ourselves as knowledgable/ concerned individuals that enjoy something that has helped humans become the dominant species on the planet.

The big question is, how many individuals do any of us know that are or would be willing to put aside their differences on hunting and work for the common good?

This is nothing new.We have been dealing with these phucks for decades.Pick your fights and they will lose.In Court we have stymied them here in Wi.For instance our currant Dove Season.Hunting Bears with Dogs and Bait.Bobcat hunting.
You are exactly right on us being our own worst enemies.
Years ago they slashed the tires on my Truck while I was hunting Public land.A nearby Farmer witnessed them do it and provided me with their descriptions and a License plate no.I punished them in Court but really would have had more satisfaction by beating the crap out of them.
Yes we need to put differences aside and have a United Front.

Very good points here, and the bottom line is; the anti-everything crowd wants ALL hunting, fishing, game breeding etc., stopped. And we know this. We should all try our best to avoid infighting where possible towards hunters. Unfortunately, some people in all walks of life are ignorant, and we can't do much for them. But most hunters I've met over the years are very good people. What I see here is an example of good people. We're going to have to fight the enemy as long as we live. They won't go away and neither will we. I find those that are against us many times are totally emotional based sheeple that have no clue about life, let alone wildlife, but I have no desire to argue with them. As you guys have said, it's the non hunting group we need to reach.

One thing, and this is a stretch for many folks, but people need to realize that the anti's do not just want to stop hunting.Their goal is to stop all human interference or ownership and manipulation of animals.

Hunting is merely a stepping stone. The anti's want to stop the raising of domestic animals on farms and ranches. The anti's want to stop pet ownership.

The anti's want to stop everything where humans have interactions with animals in any manner.

Getting the general public to see and understand that the anti's are trying to force their will on the public is what needs to be being brought to the forefront.

quote:

Originally posted by Thomas "Ty" Beaham:

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting:
One thing, and this is a stretch for many folks, but people need to realize that the anti's do not just want to stop hunting.Their goal is to stop all human interference or ownership and manipulation of animals.

Crazyhorseconsulting,
I thought I would post just one such example, taken from a 2008 article in the LA Times:

PETA wrote a letter to company founders Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield this week, saying cow's milk is hazardous and that milking them is cruel.

"If Ben and Jerry's replaced the cow's milk in its ice cream with breast milk, your customers -- and cows -- would reap the benefits," wrote Tracy Reiman, executive vice president of the advocacy group.
Read the rest of the story here: http://articles.latimes.com/20...siness/fi-icecream26

Absolutely ridiculous....How could a person reason with anyone like that.

My friends; we live in a world of idiots and monsters. The idiot's cannot think for themselves, so they must follow anyone that appears to know something; act like a big shot and run their pie-hole at a loud volume. The monsters on the other hand are silent. They stalk our Interstates, streets and neighborhoods. They rape, kill, torture and create chaos in our lives, and I include terrorists both domestic (anti-hunting groups who threaten lives, poison dogs, blow up lab's and clinics) and International (i.e., the enemy we currently are at war with). One should be pitied, then slapped back into reality, the other should be destroyed, either by capital punishment or by weapons of extreme prejudice. As the wicked Witch said after Dorothy threw water on her in the Wizard of Oz ; "What a world, what a world."
LDK

And the anti-hunters REAL agenda is gun control. If we can't hunt anymore, we don't NEED these guns do we? "Animal Rights" is just the way to get this done. The means to our end.

Gun control really is not part of the issue. There are folks that do not believe in hunting yet they do own guns. There may be some folks that see the demise of hunting as a way to gun control, but they are a minority in the whole animal rights movement.

See, it is reasoning like that, that keeps hunters divided, not everyone hunts with a gun, owning pets, farming, drinking cows milk do not have anything even remotely related to owning a gun.

People have to change their mind set/ways of thinking if we are going to present a united front to to do battle with the forces wanting hunting stopped. To claim it is all part of a "Larger Scheme " for Gun Control makes no sense, as there are lots of archers out there hunting around trhe world.

No one is saying "We Want To Stop Hunting With Firearms", they are saying "We Want To Stop All Hunting, PERIOD", they are saying,"We Want To Stop Pet Ownership/Farming-Ranching/Any and All human interference or manipulation of animals in any manner.

This issue has actually nothing to do with Gun Control, it has tro do with a well funded, vocal, mis-guided, idealistic portion of the Worlds population, believing in a concept where all creatures live in harmony.

If all anyone can see the anti-hunting movement as a way to gun control, they need to go back and do more research into the issue, because if, for no other reason there are other forms of hunting than just with firearms.

At no point will anyone see the anti-hunting forces claim that they just want hunting with Firearms Only stopped, they want All Hunting by any means stopped.

Crazyhorseconsulting is correct on this.

In fact, at least for now, much of the anti-hunting propaganda of PETA, HSUS and others such as C.A.S.H. is primarily directed at bowhunting. This is evident by their rhetoric. Visit their websites and read their material - if you can stand it. You'll notice the steroetypes of hunters who use firearms are fairly mild, "Backward" "Ignorant" "inbred redneck." Hunting (with a firearm) is simply "cruel" "unnecessary" "counterproductive" etc.

Compare that to the descriptions of the "barbaric," "sadistic," "psychopathic" bowhunters who "torture" and "maim" innocent wildlife for nothing more than "amusement."

It's amazing just how ignorant many hunters are of the true nature and eventual goals of the animal rights movement. Trapping was the start, bowhunting is focus now. Ending human interaction with animals in any form is the goal.

The animal rights movement is not about ethical hunting, "cleaning up our ranks" or issues like "canned" or high-fence hunting. It's about no hunting. It has nothing to do with gun control.

Dead on target, Randall!

And trapping, the fur industry or medical research with animals has nothing to do with firearms either. But the AR folks are after all of them.

quote:

Originally posted by Bigasanelk:
The animal rights movement is not about ethical hunting, "cleaning up our ranks" or issues like "canned" or high-fence hunting. It's about no hunting. It has nothing to do with gun control.

Unfortunately, it's not that cut and dry because the AR folks pick out the most high-profile stuff like those to make their poster-child du jour.

It's the best way for them to convince the fence sitters with "See how evil and unethical hunters are? The slobs can't even hunt their game without keeping them captive, thus making them easy prey."

The concept that many folks do not understand, is in the manner the various Animal Rights groups conduct their business.

PETA openly attacks anyone they presume to be an "Enemy" of their cause(?). Hunters/fishermen/farmers-ranchers/pet owners/dog-horse racers/medical research facilities/ordinary people that like to eat meat/eggs or drink milk, anything that their organization deems to be an exploitation of animals-birds-fish.

PETA is a radical element of the movement, not as radical as some, but more radical than HSUS.

PETA and the other radical elements such as ALF(Animal Liberation Front) and others, attract their share of support.

HSUS, taking a more conservative, less confrontational approach by running commercials showing puppies and kittens with people such as Willie Nelson and other celebrities giving credence to their causes and concerns about animals.

Because of HSUS more low keyed non-radical approach, they have been able to garner support from main stream Americans, including hunters and fishermen and the major political parties of this nation.

Ask your hunting and fishing buddies and see how many of them or their families regularly donate to the HSUS either the national organization or thru their local Humane Society/shelter????

Trying to insert Gun Control or anything dealing with the personal attitudes toward Archery Hunters as being a fundamental part of the platform of the Animal Rights Movement, is simply mis-guided thinking.

If anyone is concerned or serious about wanting to see hunting/fishing remain viable activities for our future and the future of those that follow us, as a group, hunters/fishermen have to put aside ALL of their individual prejudices and pre-conceived opinions and attitudes toward other hunters/fishermen and how they view the sports, and how they wish to participate in them.

As a group, we need to come to the understanding and awareness that the anti-forces want all hunting/fishing stopped, and because the numbers of hunters/fishermen have declined over the past few decades and the attitudes of the general public toward both activities has shifted, the combined attack by all the Animal Rights groups has a far better chance of getting hunting stopped at least than getting fishing stopped.

Taking away individual ability to own a pet or force everyone to become a vegan are fights that the Animal Rights groups do not intend to try and accomplish with a frontal assault.

HSUS will use its political ties to promote legislation on the state levels to gain control of and slowly elminate the pet trade. Same with farming and ranching.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorseconsulting

Ask your hunting and fishing buddies and see how many of them or their families regularly donate to the HSUS either the national organization or thru their local Humane Society/shelter????

Whoa with this one.

The local Humane Society is NOT affilated with HSUS! That is exactly the ploy HSUS uses by its NAME, however, to prey on people for money.

In fact, if one checks out the real local humane societies, they will see that many of them disavow having any relationship with HSUS.

HSUS is nothing but a political/lobbying organization. The local humane societies actually use donations to shelter and take care of animals.

That is absolutely correct. HSUS is not connected to any local humane societies. The local groups may or may not subscribe to the radical agendas, however.

MFH

Great points Tony and all concerning the HSUS vs local Humane Society's. That connection should be stamped out. The vast majority of folks believe they are one and the same.

quote:

Whoa with this one.

The local Humane Society is NOT affilated with HSUS! That is exactly the ploy HSUS uses by its NAME, however, to prey on people for money.

In fact, if one checks out the real local humane societies, they will see that many of them disavow having any relationship with HSUS.

HSUS is nothing but a political/lobbying organization. The local humane societies actually use donations to shelter and take care of animals.

That may be true in some areas but not all. Not sure about the local societies in Arizona, Tony, but the ones aeround the larger metropolitan centers here in Texas for the most part are affiliated in some manner with HSUS.

Remember this is a nationwide/worldwide fight, and things are not the same across the board.

Being affiliated with a society or organization takes on many guises.

While it is true that the local societies receive no support individually from HSUS, that in no way means that the local societies do not support the goals and mission of the national organization.

Just like not all Republicans are great and all Democrats are sorry, not all local humane societies are staffed by dyed in the wool HSUS believers, but enough are, to make them suspect.

It matters not what or who the HSUS supports or does not support, but WHO supports them.

Just like Senator Joe McCarthy waged a war against communism in the 50's, the HSUS and its associated/like minded/same goal oriented cronies are staging a similar war against anyone exploiting animals in their opinion.

From personal observation here in Texas the majority of the folks that work at the local humane societies are supporters/members of HSUS.

We can't set back and selectively dismiss the involvement of ANYONE that gives HSUS any financial support at all, support is support and that means they support the goals and objectives.

Folks, I do not mean to offend any one or monopolize the discussion, but some basic facts have to be pointed out.

Legally the local humane societies around the country can not openly claim that they are supported or really affiliated with the HSUS because in doing so, that would effect their local funding.

HSUS can not claim any connection to or with local humane societies across the country for the same reasons.

However, the folks that work for the local humane shelters/societies can be and are members/supporters of HSUS as private citizens.

While PETA and HSUS and the various other Animal Rights groups compete against each other for funding and support, the support they receive is all focused on the same base concepts.

HSUS just does their business in a more acceptable manner, the others are more radical. Because of their approach, HSUS garners more support than the others. At the end of the day however, all the support/funding these various organizations take in is used to pay their various administrative personnell and what is left over is directed toward their objectives in the case of this discussion, stopping hunting.

I am amazed. People came on here calling for a uniting of the forces, and where is it at now?

People actually expect to present a united front to combat the anti forces, and the whole thing has died on the vine before it even got started.

Maybe it is time hunting died. If folks are not willing to work out the differences and commit to working together, there is no way in hell we can overcome the anti's.

Really sad.

CHC:

Please allow me throw the ball back in your court: What, exactly should we do? What can we do?

You say "work out our differences," "work together" and "present a united front." That all sounds good but what sort of practical, real-world steps do you propose we take?

Animal rights is an ideology, much like communism is an ideology. You can kill communists with bullets but you cannot kill communism in the same way. A more up-to-date methphor might be radical Islam. We're killing radical Islamists by the thousands but the ideology lives on. In our fight to defend hunting, killing our opponents isn't an option. (I hesitated to write that last sentence that because the mention of violence, even to make a point, can backfire.)

There is nothing that we can say or do that will change the mind of the true animal rights believer. (Is there anything that can be said or done that will convince YOU to become an animal rights advocate and veg*n? Me either..) We can present our side of the argument to the 80% of the population who are niether hunters nor anti-hunters but we'll lose. When the subject is animals, logic goes out the window and sentementality takes over. Walt Disney knew this and went to his grave a very wealthy man because of it.

So what do we do?

Okay, for one, stop differentiating between the various types of hunting that folks do. High Fence/Low Fence/over a bait/food plot/long bow/recurve/compound/crossbow/primitive muzzle loader/in-line and the list goes on.

Each and everyone of us is buying a license and the equipment, all of it geared toward hunting. Until hunters mature enough and care about the sport enough to lay the supposed differences aside, we have lost, no need in fighting.

You think hunting in Texas from a blind over a feeder is wrong, too damn bad. It is a form of hunting and the money spent doing it helps hunting.

You think every thing should be done Fair Chase, define "Fair Chase" hunting in words that all hunters will agree with, You Cannot Do It, and neither can I, because it has a different meaning to each one of us.

Until hunters can accept the fact that hunting means diffedrent things to different people, and respect them for their beliefs, things are only going to get worse.

This has NOTHING to do with changing te minds of the anti's, that is foolish thinking at best.

We have to get the folks in the middle of the road to se that hunting and hunters are not the problem th anti's claim we are.

Anyone that thinks/believes we need to try and change the Anti's opinion is more of a liability than a help.

Well, I see this subject has died on the vine, so we are going to let the anti's win with no opposition.

Just look at this topic that has been started:

quote:

Not Trying to Be Argumentative, Just Want to Understand

and look at the responces.

Maybe it is time hunting died, because too fdamn many of us cannot get beyond the differences we see in what some folks consider hunting.

As a group we are a pathetic bunch of elitist who deserve losing the priveldge to hunt.

Instead of having the balls or backbone to join together and defend hunting in any form, we want to segregate ourselves into real hunters and slobs.

LDK, I do apologise, but unless or until hunters can put aside their prejudices, the anti hunting forces are going to win and there is not one damn trhing that can be done about it.

It absolutely amazes me that so many people claim that they care and want to save hunting, and cannot simply set aside petty differences.

David, that was part one, do you know if part two saw the light of day.

It appears that it really does not matter to anyone, as people do not seem to be willing to set aside their differences of opinion about what is or is not "Hunting, where as the anti groups have set aside their differences and are focused on getting hunting of any kind stopped.