From reading PETA's website,I found out that they are against the following-
Hunting
Fishing
Bull Riding
The milking of cows
The consumption of cow milk
Zoos
Owning pets (that's a new one on me!)
The use of anything animal related for clothing,including leather,fur,down,silk and even wool
The harvesting of honey for human consumption

Now,on some theoretical level,I can understand why they are against hunting (because they just don't "get it"),and I have always thought that animals don't see real pleased being locked up in a zoo.BUT,I think it is just plain crazy to think that drinking milk is cruel to the cow,or that wearing a wool coat makes you a sadist.Hell,if you didn't shear a sheep the sucker would burn up for crying out loud.The one that really got me going was honey-think about the poor bees!LOL

Now,do you people belive that PETA is ran by a group of nutjobs?I know I sure do.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

Happy Hunting

Mainstream Americans see these people encouraging teens to drink beer instead of milk, calling pet ownership "animal abuse" and calling for an end to fishing and they say to themselves "Darn, these peta guys are total ####### wacos!"

Jason

I always thought all those "No Hunting" signs on National Forest property were put up by our fellow hunters to protect their "secret spot".I just ignored them before,but now I'll be sure to take them down.

Now,PETA is encouraging people to interfere with out way of life.I'd sure like to find out the locality of the nearest PETA building.I'd dress up in buckskins,and sit in front of the place eating buffalo wings and drinking milk.Heck,they'd probibly call the police.That would be fine with me,as most cops like buffalo wings and milk too.

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

As far as sitting out in front of PETA HQ you could have some problems. Major highway on one side and the harbor on the other. Sorry.

On the other hand, a local radio station WNOR, which is hosted in the mornings by Tommy and Rumble, give PETA a real hard time. Both DJ's are avid fisherman and hold an annual fishing tournament every year. It used to be called the Anti-PETA Fishing Tourney (amongst other names degrading PETA.) The funny part is that they launch their boats (a few hundred entrants) from the public boat launch only a couple hundred feet away, from PETA HQ. All done in full sight of the PETA offices. They will slowly fill up that area of the harbor and then the DJs get on a bull horn to plead that PETA changes their ways and join them for some surf and turf! All the TV stations show up to catch this.

After the day is done, they have the weigh-in back at the public boat ramp. Of course, the radio station plays on the fact of "getting even" with PETA, so it has been a huge success and continues to get bigger every year!

In the mornings, they make prank phone calls, make hash of the latest PETA exploit, and generally cause as much consternation for PETA as possible. Really funny stuff.

Thought this might make you feel a little better....

People Eating Tasty Animals!!!

------------------
NRA Life member

Actually, I'm less worried about the PETA people than I am about the unethical morons who call themselves hunters, who do irresponsible things (I'm sure if you've hunted for more than a few seasons, you know what I'm talking about.)

These are the people who worry me. These are the people who, by their irresponsible actions, will turn the general public (who don't hunt, but also aren't animal rights activists) against hunters. And there's way more of the general public than there are hunters, and they vote.

I have close friends who are not anti-hunting, but lean that way when they hear reports of people poaching, and shooting road signs, and shooting farm dogs, etc. They get it in their mind that ALL hunters behave that way. I go out of my way to try to stress that these morons are but a small minority, and aren't really hunters. they're criminals. I stress that most hunters are ethical, responsible, knowledgeable of the laws and regulations, and follow them.

I'll tell you, it's a hard sell.

My suggestion to all of you is to do whatever you can to promote hunting as a safe, reputable sport by your actions and deeds. PR is a wonderful thing. Got some extra venison in the freezer you don't need? Donate it to a worthy cause, and make sure folks know "this came from hunters." Stuff like that goes a long way.

Again, I'm less worried about the PETA extremists than I am about the people who don't care, but will care, if we hunters don't do the right thing.

Tim

[This message has been edited by TimB99 (edited 12-27-2001).]

Fanatics push their message, well past where the majority of members that belong to these organizations would ever go.

I was a mamber of "Sierra and the NRA, GOA", at the same time. Sierra pushed their message so far that I could no longer be a member.
Hell, I don't always agree with the NRA, but I stay because they protect a lot of freedom I believe in. Therefore, they are a group I can support.

I left Sierra a long time ago. They, just like Greenpeace, have become fanatics. I don't think there is anything that can be constuctive once it is taken to a fanatical level. Including God. Look to bin Laden for that example.

So, in the end, F _ _ K Them, as so well put just before me.

Ignore them, until you can quell their ridiculous shouts at the voting booth.

Edit: Oh yeah, to answer the original question about PETA, YES THEY ARE NUTS!

[This message has been edited by 1LoneWolf (edited 12-27-2001).]

------------------
Even the strongest oak must bend to the winds of fate.

FN

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dutch:
Peta is easy to understand, once you realize it is a RELIGIOUS organization. You can quit using logic, because it is all based on beliefs. JMO, Dutch.

---

Dutch,

Bingo, you nailed it! These folks worship animals, though I'm sure many of their members and supporters don't realize they do, though there actions are clear.

Same with the environmental groups, they are earth worshipers, no more, no less.

The problem is our country has lost sight of the principles it was founded under, and without standing behind them, the masses will fall for anything.

I was encouraged when Britney Spears backed
out of her Peta deal but she made it very
clear that she intends to still "find an
animal rights group to support." Attempting
to discount the power of a young lady such
as this and the influence she wields is
very dangerous.

The fight must be taken to groups such as
Peta continually. Denying that they are
making constant inroads on mainstream
America is insanity and smacks of one whose
head is very deep in the sand.

Do something.

Ross

------------------
I'm out to wrong rights,depress the opressed,and generaly make an ass of myself!

However, one could certainly say the same for some of the hunting breathren as well.

I'm going to list some of my man animal bitches here.

Tusk record photos make me want to puke.
What was truly beautiful was the animal attached to the tusks. Couldn't these idiots just take a picture of a live animal?

Let the elephant die of natural causes?

The entire tiger penis, rhino horn,sperm whales for oil, tuna for sushi, elephant ivory stuff, etc. makes me ill.

Greed and hunting=slaughtering animals to the point of extinction?

Better get that damn trophy, or the animals may not exist.

Somewhere, someone, is going to realize we are killing intelligent life forms. Japanese slaughter whales that have more brains per pound then they do. Same with the russians.
Let's kill gorillas, since we can now talk with them.
How about elephants? They seem to have a complex social structure, able to convey ideas through some form of language.

Wouldn't it be more intresting trying to find out what, and how they communicate, rather then shooting them?

I guess it all comes down to steward ship.
We are stewards on this big planet, and wanton destruction of natural resources, for personal financial gain are pretty abhorent.

One good bit of news, thanks to Alf, and people like him, is that game hunting has become a great resource for african nations, and, though that, the resource is now being protected, and my kids might be able to see a black rhino in something other then a museum.

In other words, don't slaughter the resource that butters your bread.

Perhaps PETA and Greenpeace overstate their positions, but, at least their positions haven't threatened the extinction of a spieces, like ivory, rhino horns, and tiger
parts have.

gs

Is not drinking milk a bit of overkill? Sure.

Is not eating tuna sushi? I don't think so.
Good news is being on top of the food chain, the tuna might recover quickly.

We shall see.

I'm really encouraged by AIDS. God may solve many of Africa's biggest problems Himself. Over popluation, enfringing on animal habitat maybe solved by elimenating the people as well.

War can be a good thing...

gs

Granted there is plenty wrong with the world and mans approach to taking care of it, especially in the past. But Im sorry, animals are meant for more than just being photographed. MUCH more!

[This message has been edited by Wstrnhuntr (edited 12-31-2001).]

Turns out Britney Spears will be supporting
Peta after all although not in the nude as
originally reported.

Ross

Turns out Britney Spears will be supporting
Peta after all although not in the nude as
originally reported.

Ross[/B][/QUOTE]

Will nothing good ever come of this?

Perhaps we could give OBL to the gorillas?
I'm sure they could come up with some sort of suitable death, not encumbered by any legal system, other then their own.

I'm actually a bit surprised you guys don't support some of PETA's ends, since they are the same as hunters, in many ways.

I don't think anyone here supports the senseless slaughter of our natural resources, animals in this case.

Am I way off base saying that without the ban on ivory sales, we wouldn't have any elephants, period, since corrupt, greedy government leaders would happily shot all the elephants in their country, so they would have all the wealth from the dead elephants?

I strongly suspect the decline in elephant, tiger, and rhino population to be the result of government sponsered poaching???

The only way to stop these idiots was,and is, the economic world sanction against sales of these products, and, it's worked, thank God.

From the site you sent me too, they are also addressing what they consider inhuman killing of animals.

This is a major topic here, the concept of a
clean, quick death for the animals you hunt is an ethical standard held by about everyone here.
Why shouldn't this concern carry over to the killing of captive animals?
It appears PETA is trying to use the same sanctions against slaughter houses, poorly run, as governments did to protect african game animals. Economic sanctions, forcing the slaughter houses to listen to their position, and concerns.

I strongly suggest you look at the issues that the PETA people are bringing up, and address the issues, not some alleged hate they have for hunting.

Otherwise you become no better then the ultra-liberals you are attacking.

They are exactly like that, not bothering to let facts, or ethics alter their perception of their world, but thinking that their perception is the only valid one going.

Don't fall into the same trap.

gs

"Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment."--PETA

They are not only agains ALL hunting, but ALL consumption of meat by human beings. They believe EVERYBODY should be a vegetarian.

Don't think because you don't wear fur you aren't on their shit list. Leather, wool, etc, is also taboo.

If you or anybody in your family ever gets sick, you'll be thankful that doctors have been using animals for medical experimentation for hundreds of years. If the ailment is something for which there is no cure yet, you'll want them to kill as many rats in the lab as it takes until they find one. PETA would rather let people die than use animals to further medical research.

You're surprized people here don't support those ends? What?

I am pointing out that some of their motivation is in line with conservation goals that hunters have. Therefore, supporting those goals is logical, if not the organization.

Selective issue identification, is what I am suggesting. Period.

The issues being dealt with are complex, and PETA is pretty obviously, a simple solution,
to a complex problem.

However, their answer is not one I support.

None the less, their antics focus on REAL conservation problems, and issues with inhumane killing of animals.

"As far as African animals are concerned, the reason a lot of them have been saved from extinction is because the govt's in some of these countries have realized that these animals are worth far more when they are sustainably managed for hunting rather than a one time killing for ivory or skin."

No.
the reason they are saved is because the
poachers had no market for their ill gotten gains, and therefore, the poacher/government officals had to figure out another viable form of profit from their country.

"Hunting is a major business in these countries and as long as they manage their wildlife for sustainable hunting they will always have an income and they will always have wildlife."

Yes. However, the people running these countries are completely unintrested in anything but their own personal wealth, and enjoyment. Dictators are like that

" When or if hunting is banned by these anti's then wildlife will be in danger as the locals will go back to poaching. "

Anti's have NO impact on corrupt dictators.
They could careless what Peta has to say.
As long as you pay the bucks, you are going to be able to go to Africa and shoot game, as long as the government gets it's trophy share.

"Are you forgetting that it was always hunters who came to the aid of wildlife and forced gov't to enact laws for their protection long before any animal rights group was ever in the picture."

Oh please. Like any african, or hunter for that matter, has any influence on the corrupt governments of that area? Get a grip.
Read Capstick about loosing everything he owned in his country.

Try and get the guys that have ranches in RSA to talk about the fact that they are not allowed to take any of their wealth from the country, so they are forced to either reside
there part time, or try and figure out a way to smuggle their wealth out of the country.
No, your hunter on a white horse is really a figment of your imagination, if you think they can make any of these corrupt, dictators do anything.

My favorite is the one that has outlawed sex from 12 or so to 25 I think it is, in attempting to stop the spread of AIDS.

The locals CANNOT go back to poaching, if there is no market for ivory, or rhino horns, period.

That's why some of the african governments, with tons of ivory, from dead, or poached elephants, want to reopen the ivory market, so they can make their instant cash from the sale of elephant ivory.

Illegal ivory poacher=hunter+greed-ethics+government backing

How are ivory poachers, and whale hunters, that much different? Both are so stupid they will kill the source of their income, so that they, and only they, can benefit from their annihalation, and extinction, of a spieces.
Japanese are doing this as we speak.

gs

We have many of these in Northern California, the home of the intolerant liberal, San Francisco and Berkeley.

MFH: DON'T EVER CALL ME LIBERAL. THOSE ARE FIGHTING WORDS;-)

"Would you give up a child to save an animal?? I would certainly hope not."

I would. The current situation in Africa, and the rest of the world is appalling. We have so many people, with no responsibility, or intelligence concerning breeding, that I would happily give up as many people as God is going to kill with aids, to have wild life in Africa for future generations.

I can think of a whole bunch of African leaders that I would happily sacrifice, burned at the stake, for the life of one baby white rhino. Mugabe comes to mind>>>

I like that killer hippo, in another thread, that went wild after they killed his mate. We need more animals like that. At least they have loyalty to thier mates, something that if Africans had, they wouldn't have an aids problem.

"You were bad for harming or disturbing any living creature. "

Intresting philosophy. I think it's buddist in origin. Shaolin monks don't allow killing of anything, including roaches, etc. thinking God created them, and, the negative energy created by the act is bad for the soul.

I however, don't agee. Completely.

As I stated earlier, if I have a choice between being dinner for a great white shark, or tiger shark, I would much rather have him for dinner, and it would be a lot of dinner.

OK: Have it your way on Peta. I don't know, and don't associate with such people.
My concepts of freedom, and liberty, and right of self-protection, don't figure in with their liberal concepts, UNTIL they get mugged.

gs

After hearing this liberal garbage from Hillary Clinton, for 8 years, knowing she could careless, kill the little bastards;-)
gs

I don't think that I called you a liberal, personally...I know that is among the worst of personal insults I meant that the use of gradual restrictions for an end result of animal rights(which I consider wrong and to be a liberal goal)would be considered liberal incrementalism.
As to a child over an animal, I was thinking in a more personal nature. Would I give up my own for an animal...no way in hell! But, on a global perspective,or in another country, I see your point.Possibly no different than war casulties. Things are generally viewed a little different if not from a personal perspective.

MFH

As for liberal errosion or rights, this is a problem. It's a problem from both sides.

How do we protect national resources, without infringing on personal rights?

Can we allow a guy who owns a forest, to cut down redwoods that are 1000 years old, or older, destroying a natural habitat, for different animals, some you may hunt, and replace them with new pine trees?

In Sierra Club vs. Morton, Justice Douglas in a small bit of justice humor, suggested the solution to the problem was to give the trees,
"Standing to sue."

I guess at some point, we have to decide if we do have a stewardship obligation, to ourselves, and future generations, and act accordingly.

Having just lost a pet fish, that stuck herself in coral, something she is supposed to understand, and chew on, got frightened, puffed up, made it worse, and died, stuck by her own fear, I will say that stewardship is never easy, complicated, and frustrating.

Yet, don't we have to do it, somehow, and some way?

The problem is, this creates the slippery slide, where people like PETA, erode slowly our rights to hunt, 2nd amendment rights, etc.

The rest of the world makes these problems much worse. They can't seem to get people to stablize their reproduction to match the countries production resources, and, to put these population requirements in balance with the natural surroundings, and other animals on the planet.

Hunting is one thing, slaughter is another, for economic gain. What the people here do is hunting, but, their hunting is an economic resource that is being managed, and aids the countries they hunt in, most of the time.
However, those same countries would allow their people to slaughter animals, like elephants, and sell the ivory. I don't need to lecture you on the decline in certain spieces of wild life in Africa. Only the economic, liberal pushed, ban on ivory, and rhino horn, and the value of these animals as trophies, for hunters, has stopped the morons that are in power from elimenating them completely.

In our country, we use many legal constructs to protect things that need protecting. Spotted owls to protect beautiful forests, etc.

One of my favorites is harm to the viewer of animal cruelty is sufficent to allow that person to sue, to stop the harm to the animal.

The problem is usually personal gain, short term wealth, balanced against long term stewardship.

If it takes a construct of a whale being able to sue in federal court, to stop the Japanese ahd Russians from slaughtering them, I can live with that.

Do I have to go out and watch someone kill a Blue whale to sue to stop their final elimenation from the planet?

Yes, I cheer for the animals every once in awhile.

Killer whales mate for life, and put up with us keeping them in captivity. Some Japanese idiot bought Marineworld, and split up a pair of life long mates. Much like the mad hippo in another thread, the killer whale at the park drown his trainer, who tried to get him to perform by beating him over the head with a 2 x4. I guess he got the whales attention

This is just an example of the lack of consideration about the natural bonds animals have for each other, and their complex relationships.

A recent documentary showed that when wildlife 'experts' shot the domiant male in elephant groups, the young males, growing up without a role model, turned into killers and thugs, and had to be destroyed.

Their is much evidence that dolphins, and killer whales, have larger brains for their body size then we do. They exhibit complex thought, ability to communicate complex ideas over long distances, and form plans.

One day, perhaps they will finally teach us how to talk to them, and we might find out we aren't the brightest spieces on the planet.

They certainly haven't killed all their natural food resources, for fun and profit.

Anyway, my point is that one day, we may evolve, and learn to communicate with other spieces, as we do with gorillas.

It would really be a shame if we manage to kill all of them before this happens.

Do you think intelligent wildlife, such as gorillas, dolphins, whales, should be protected, and if so, how do we construct standing in our legal system to protect them?
Worse, how, other then economic pressure, like PETA suggests, do we stop the Mugabe's of the world from killing all their own countries elephants, for their ivory, so they can be rich, for the next 10-20 years, while we loose those animals forever?

While I will support your right to hunt, to the hilt, since I believe in the freedoms written in our amendments, and Constitution,
I also think your children have a right to
be able to view the same animals that walk the planet currently, in the future.

How we can accomplish both, is a complex problem, and PETA's maybe neccessary, for a short period of time, to accomplish certain goals.

I grew up in this area, and the Black Panthers were a neccessary group, to expose the injustices of certain other groups, but, their time was brief, and their existence in this time is not required.

Much like Jesse Jackson, he had a time and a period where his sort of work was required, but that time has passed, and he has not evolved.

Perhaps groups like PETA, in the long run, will have a similar influence, and are needed to bring awareness to certain abuses, despite their radical position.

Kind of reminds me of Gandalf talking about Gollum, in The Lord of the Rings. He's reluctant to kill him, because he thinks Gollum may play a very important part in the overall proceedings, a part he can't forsee.
Perhaps we should have the same sort of perspective on groups like PETA.

gs

Love that Bambi!

Don