on 2008/8/8 17:58:13 (20 reads)


Former BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER star ELIZA DUSHKU has upset animal rights activists in America after revealing she hunts elk and deer.

The actress proudly showed off her bow and arrow skills on late-night chat show Jimmy Kimmel Live! on Wednesday (06Aug08) and boasted about killing a deer in Oklahoma last Christmas (Dec07).

She also revealed she was hunting for elk in Colorado when she landed her role in upcoming TV series Dollhouse.

Realising the studio audience had turned on her over her Bambi-killing antics, Dushku joked, "My mother called me herself and said, 'You're a liberal from New England, what the 'f' are you doing in Oklahoma shooting things."

And when Kimmel took the actress to task for her hunting boasts, she defended her actions by stating, "When you're in a relationship with somebody you have to, like, experience things that they do."

She added, "A lot of people eat meat... and I eat what I kill."

Dushku's remarks have angered People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) activists, who insist the actress should put down her bow and stop hunting.

A spokeswoman for the organisation says, "Slaying bloodthirsty vampires on Buffy is brave, but slaying innocent animals where they live and raise their families is cowardly and cruel.

"Eliza is sorely out of step with the rest of the country; 95 per cent of Americans oppose hunting."

http://www.showbizspy.com/news/08072008/dushku-upsets-a...-with-hunting-boasts

95% of Americans oppose hunting? I guess the other five percent live here on AR

Legitimate surveys indicate that about 25 percent of Americans oppose hunting. About 8 percent of the population over the age of 16 hunts according to recent surveys.

quote:

Legitimate surveys

In this day and atmosphere is there such a thing as a Legitimate Survey??????

I have always been of the belief that 10% of the populace is for something and 10% is totally against the same thing.

If 25% of the populace really does hunt and enjoy it, then maybe we should try and influence all the people we know, and send our protests about such things as the way this lady was treated on the show, to the people that sponsor this idiot Kimmel and see if a possible economic boycott of those sponsors might change the way business is being done. JAO.

what a bunch of BS! PETA is so full of $h!t that all they talk is crap. IF 85% of Americans were against hunting, then it would have been outlawed years ago. And yet states are passing laws to promote hunting for their citizens forever. PETA is at best an unethical, uncivilized, narrow-minded, intolerant organization full of socialist/communistic thinkers. And to think this country was founded on tolerance and freedom. The founding fathers would be rolling over in their graves. JMHO

gd

PETA can suck eggs. Oh wait, that would be consuming unborn chickens. How about, PETA can eat schit! No animals would be harmed that way.

Alan

I saw this story yesterday in the San Francisco Chronicle,

Dushku Upsets Animal Lovers with Hunting Boasts

Read the comments, they are overwhelmingly in support of Ms. Dushku, pictured below.



Eliza needs an invite to a few of the Becoming An Outdoor Woman weekends, hang out with some female wildlife biologists and learn about wildlife management.

I love animals, too. I love them most when they're medium-rare.

God Bless Miss Dushku.


Okie John

Let's see:

beautiful, talented, and a hunter to boot? Damn, did that article say boyfriend???

gd

quote:

Originally posted by 500nitro:
95 per cent of Americans oppose hunting."

...and precisely 88% of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Seems Peta is terribly inconsistent--they are against hurting animals but are NOT against abortion. It's a terrible thing to kill a deer, but its ok to kill a baby. Something's wrong with this picture.

quote:

Originally posted by Red C.:
Seems Peta is terribly inconsistent--they are against hurting animals but are NOT against abortion. It's a terrible thing to kill a deer, but its ok to kill a baby. Something's wrong with this picture.

PETA's philosophy is to kill a baby to save a rat. I think that pretty much sums them up.

Fuck PETA

PETA is composed of the Nations misfits, the losers who can't tell right from wrong.
They would in fact, kill a baby to save a rat.

What did you expect? When the friggen "peaceniks" of the 60's and early 70's ran out of things to protest they created this entire tree hugger movement. Now we are all having to deal with their emotional thinking. They never stop to look logically at any other possibility.

Ken....

It's really important to understand the difference between Animal Rights and Animal Welfare.

To an AR person (and PeTA is an AR organization), the life of an animal and that of a human are of equal moral value. So, if it is immoral or unethical to do something to a human, it is no less so to do it to an animal.

The AR people have coined a (clumsy) an "-ism term" that about sums it up, and that term is "speciesism." They argue that if it is unethical to discriminate on the basis of differences in race (racism), gender (sexism) or age (ageism), so too it is unethical to discriminate on the basis species differences (speciesism).

But they run into a problem. PeTA, for example, kills something over 85% (thousands of creatures per year) of the animals they take into their Norfolk "shelter," the rationale being that the animals are unadoptable, sick or that they have been emotionally "damaged" through human abuse.

Well, unless they'd kill humans for exactly the same reasons that they kill animals, they're violating the human/animal moral equivalency which distinguishes AR from AW. Besides — aren't such animals, the ones abandoned, diseased and victimized by humans — precisely the most innocent and least able to care for themselves, and therefore the most deserving of AR protections?

And then there's the little problem of spaying and neutering. Virtually all AR groups — and PeTA is the most prominent amongst them — have outreach programs for spaying and neutering animals. If they really believe that humans and animals are of equal moral value, would they also advocate the forcible spaying and neutering of human beings for the same reasons they would neuter animals?

If anyone is interested in reading more about this stuff, you can begin here.

Brian

quote:

Originally posted by Alan R. McDaniel, Jr.:
PETA can suck eggs. Oh wait, that would be consuming unborn chickens. How about, PETA can eat schit! No animals would be harmed that way.

Alan

NOPE!
They'd be depriving dung beetles of their sustinence, and I actually care SOME about dung beetles.
No care at all for PETA folks. Let them eat each other. And being dead will not only reduce their carboin footprints, it'll enrich the soil and actually RETURN carbon to the environment!

quote:

Originally posted by B. L. O'Connor:



And then there's the little problem of spaying and neutering. Virtually all AR groups — and PeTA is the most prominent amongst them — have outreach programs for spaying and neutering animals. If they really believe that humans and animals are of equal moral value, would they also advocate the forcible spaying and neutering of human beings for the same reasons they would neuter animals?


Brian

Maybe they should start with their own members, as the increased population of mentally disturbed "animal rights" proponents is unsustainable & harmful to the environment.

I think we should shove PETA "political correctness" right down their throats by demanding they be charged with a "hate crime" any and every time the harrass our hunting culture and legal personal choices of lifestyle.

I was wondering, does the World Wildlife foundation have an anti-hunter agenda?? I think probably they do. At any rate, today I bought some on sale ammo at Dick's and apparently, they are helping Mike enroll people in a "race for humanity" later this month. entrants can direct the charity of their choice to receive their entry fee and WWF was a choice.

So, I asked the cashier the above question about WWF and then pointed out that, if true, it seemed rather inconsistent that they just sold me ammo to be used to kill animals. I think she was a bit flustered and all I got were sneers from the other customers in line.

I dunno. Just wondering.

quote:

Originally posted by jsl3170:
I was wondering, does the World Wildlife foundation have an anti-hunter agenda?? I think probably they do. At any rate, today I bought some on sale ammo at Dick's and apparently, they are helping Mike enroll people in a "race for humanity" later this month. entrants can direct the charity of their choice to receive their entry fee and WWF was a choice.

So, I asked the cashier the above question about WWF and then pointed out that, if true, it seemed rather inconsistent that they just sold me ammo to be used to kill animals. I think she was a bit flustered and all I got were sneers from the other customers in line.

I dunno. Just wondering.

That's a good question.

My quick 'n dirty perusal of some sources indicates that they are not opposed to hunting, so long as it is done legally and endangered or threatened species are not hunted. If this is true, they are not an Animal Rights organization.

I believe their official position is that they take no official position on the morality of hunting, though they apparently appreciate that it can be an appropriate wildlife management tool. They seem more interested in preserving biospheres, with all that implies, than in taking a death grip on anti-hunting ideology.

Though their views on Global Warming, sustainable energy, drilling, etc., tell me they're ideologically to the left, they seem also to take some heat from the far left nut-cases because they're willing to work with some of those big, evil corporations to preserve habitat.