PETA and HSUS

[catfishrod69]

I once read a article of a man who was hunting cape buffalo (the black death!), with a bow. He was in the complete open with no trees around, and had a monster bull 30 yards in front of him staring him down. He was crouched in a very akward position, but any movement what so ever, and the bull would have charged. Being that a human cannot outrun a cape buffalo, he had no choice but to stay in that position and wait for a shot.....Now that is patience, knowledge, respect, dedication!

Hunting requires skills such as patience, extreme knowledge and respect for the game you are hunting, and good marksmanship with the weapon of choice.

 

[pitbulllady]

I just love it when the uneducated insist on grouping hunters with trophy collectors. There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS. Hunting requires skills such as patience, extreme knowledge and respect for the game you are hunting, and good marksmanship with the weapon of choice. Shooting an animal in a cage just because you want a trophy is NOT hunting. I have issues with that. I do not have issues with, and completely support legitimate hunting. If AR groups were truly concerned about protecting endangered/threatened species in their native countries, then they would understand that the biggest key in succeeding is through education. Education takes money. So many countries are so destitute that education is just not feasible without some sort of economic boost. They are more concerned with feeding and protecting themselves. If an animal has no economic value, then it will not be protected no matter what international law says. Conservation through commercialization (including responsible hunting, responsible collecting for the pet trade, and ecotourism) is a feasible solution that will benefit both the people and the environment in the long run by providing a boost in local economy. PETA, HSUS, and many other AR groups spend their donations on lobbyists, advertisements, and celebrity spokespersons in developed countries to promote their messages. If they were truly concerned about endangered and threatened species, they would be spending their money on education and economically boosting third world countries. International hunting organizations are doing just that - promoting education and providing economic boosts to countries all over the world, while promoting responsible hunting.

Thank you once again, lancej! There should also be made a distinction between HUNTING and simply killing something that regarded as a pest, or not valued in any way, as is all too often the case in developing countries when people and animals clash. As you pointed out, very often animals like lions and elephants in their countries are not viewed as valuable resources, but simply as agricultural pests or threats to human safety, and a lot of that has to do with education. It does not matter to a farmer whether that animal destroying his crops or attacking his cattle is endangered or not, when his own existence depends on the success of his farming. Teaching and providing farmers with alternate means of dealing with wild animals, aside from simply killing them, would be money well-spent, but I have yet to hear of any AR group willing to provide those funds, even though they certainly have the means to do so. Villagers shooting elephants that have been getting into their crops are NOT "hunters", anymore than a farmer shooting a fox he catches in the chicken coop, devouring chickens. I can guarantee that the most ardent anti-hunters have not gathered their "information" by actually participating in a hunt, by interviewing real hunters face to face, but have gotten their "information" second-hand, passed down by groups like HSUS. The fact that so many lump anyone who kills a wild animal for whatever reason and under any circumstance all together in one category-hunters-says a lot about the lack of genuine knowledge on the subject. There are legitimate hunters who abide by the laws, who RESPECT the game that they pursue, who are very knowledgeable about those animals, about their habitat, and about the weapons needed to bring them down. There are poachers. There are trophy collectors. And there are simply people trying to protect their way of life, their very survival. They are NOT the same things at all! I drive a car. Jimmy Johnson also drives a car. Does that make ME a champion NASCAR driver, too? Real hunters do actually enjoy the outdoors. We donate to organizations like Ducks Unlimited, which purchase and provide habitat for wildlife that would otherwise be destroyed. We do not just go blasting away at every animal we see. I like seeing deer, even when I'm not hunting...unless they're in front of my vehicle. I just see myself as a predator, not just a scavenger who must eat what something else kills, which is basically what you do when you purchase meat from a store or restaurant. I enjoy taking that time and effort to learn about my quarry, to try and match wits with it, and most of the time, the animal will win that battle! Human knowledge and technology will never catch up with the animals' evolution. This whole notion that hunters can't simply enjoy seeing an animal without wanting to blast away at it is a fallacy. It's like saying that you cannot look at and admire another person without wanting to have sex with them! Are there slob hunters? Sure, there are. There are also lousy examples to be found in every single aspect of humanity, but to insist that ALL hunters are like this, again, is a false notion. It's a negative stereotype perpetuated by people who want to see all hunting banned, all animal agriculture banned, all pet ownership/breeding banned. Few even realize how deeply that message in ingrained in popular entertainment, what I like to call "The Bambi Syndrome", how much we are bombarded with a message that hunters are cruel, evil, bloodthirsty monsters out to kill all the innocent widdle animals and lay waste to the wilderness.

pitbulllady

 

[Thistles]

There must be so many straw men in this thread because it's close to Halloween.

Yes, lancej, education is indeed the answer to almost every problem. Educating women in particular is the biggest key to improving pretty much everything.

Let me clarify some things you seem not to understand. I have never said I support either PETA or the HSUS. In fact, both of my posts were simply attempting to make clear distinctions between issues. Good job lumping everything together, except of course the extremely fine distinction you draw between people shooting wild animals and people shooting caged animals. One is clearly awesome because you think it is and the other clearly sucks because you think it does. Did you not notice my disdain for how we label animals and the laws surrounding hunting and protection of endangered species? Did you really somehow get the impression that I am at all confident that those will protect animals or is it just easier to keep slugging away at a straw man?

There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS.

Nothing wrong with it because you said so? I see quite a bit wrong with it. It's killing an animal for entertainment either way.

There should also be made a distinction between HUNTING and simply killing something that regarded as a pest, or not valued in any way, as is all too often the case in developing countries when people and animals clash.

I agree. The hunter is the one who is morally bankrupt and should know better. Someone killing an animal threatening his livelihood has a better reason to do so than some wanker who wants a thrill and a head on his wall.

I just see myself as a predator, not just a scavenger who must eat what something else kills, which is basically what you do when you purchase meat from a store or restaurant.

And now you choose to omit that many AR groups are opposed to eating meat from a store, too. Better and better. What you are is a mostly bald ape that evolved to eat plants, not meat. You are not a predator. You're delusional.

There are also lousy examples to be found in every single aspect of humanity, but to insist that ALL hunters are like this, again, is a false notion. It's a negative stereotype perpetuated by people who want to see all hunting banned, all animal agriculture banned, all pet ownership/breeding banned.

This from someone lumping all AR organizations and causes and issues together. What's good for the goose...

Seriously, let me just swap words around some here: "...but to insist that ALL people who promote animal rights are like this, again, is a false notion. It's a negative stereotype perpetuated by people who want to see all hunting permitted, all animal agriculture promoted, all pet ownership/breeding allowed in any form." Sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? It is.

 

[Galapoheros]

"What you are is a mostly bald ape that evolved to eat plants, not meat. You are not a predator." But that can't be stated as a fact, you have been convinced of a theory. There are contradicting theories with good arguments.

 

[BobGrill]

I'm a big animal lover, but if someone wants to hunt an animal as long as they do so humanely (like killing it quickly and not torturing it), then they should be allowed to do that. As long as the animal isn't endangered, then I don't see anything wrong with it. I shouldn't have to repeat the fact that I'm a big animal lover myself, but I just want to get that across before I start getting accused of being sick for not having a problem with hunting.

 

[The Snark]

Slam on the brakes, please!

Let us level the playing field a little here and stop with the sugar coating. IT IS NOT HUNTING. It is killing animals. PERIOD! Be it a dead on shot to the heart from a .308 or slow death by shock and starvation from certain traps, it is using our pre-frontals to cause animals deaths. You can leave the ridiculous argument of always killing humanely in the sewage where it belongs. Even the most diligent 'hunt'er maims and causes acute suffering on occasion.

HUMANELY? Drop the unmitigated bullfeathers. In this modern day there are thousands of alternatives in the form of digital cameras that you can shoot animals with without the hazard of causing pain and suffering. Most governments have eliminated firing squads as capital punishment for the reason that it is not considered humane for a number of reasons. If you so desperately have the need to kill animals, so be it. Just stop justifying your actions with this age old gigantic blowfest. We get enough of that hogslop spewing out of Wash DC and the various faux news panderers.

And for the sake of all that's unholy, quit the bashing of AR groups with blanket statements. Some are slime. Some are doing exemplary work. For the serious bashers, please drag your gnarly carcasses on over this way and lend a hand fitting animals, from human to elephants, with prosthetics and doing other often thankless remedial acts after they encounter land mines your governments love to toss around by the millions with the hope of, on rare occasion, maiming an enemy combatant instead of the countless innocent animal victims.

 

[catfishrod69]

Actually a heart shot is not a good shot at all. On a deer, you want a double lung penetration. If you shoot them in the heart, it could take days and miles for them to pass on.

Be it a dead on shot to the heart from a .308

 

[Thistles]

"What you are is a mostly bald ape that evolved to eat plants, not meat. You are not a predator." But that can't be stated as a fact, you have been convinced of a theory. There are contradicting theories with good arguments.

I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you explain what I have been convinced of and what "contradicting theories" I should be taking in to account.

I'm a big animal lover, but if someone wants to hunt an animal as long as they do so humanely (like killing it quickly and not torturing it), then they should be allowed to do that. As long as the animal isn't endangered, then I don't see anything wrong with it. I shouldn't have to repeat the fact that I'm a big animal lover myself, but I just want to get that across before I start getting accused of being sick for not having a problem with hunting.

Ok, that's a lot of opinion with nothing to back it up. "They should be allowed to do that" why exactly? How will you enforce and define "humane?" What benefit is killing an animal "as long as the animal isn't endangered" and isn't that cut off arbitrary?

Actually a heart shot is not a good shot at all. On a deer, you want a double lung penetration. If you shoot them in the heart, it could take days and miles for them to pass on.

Doing my arguing for me.

I enjoy taking that time and effort to learn about my quarry, to try and match wits with it...

Beyond hilarious. Play chess if you want to learn about and match wits with an opponent. Don't take on a deer. What dastardly masterminds they are...

I just love it when the uneducated insist on grouping hunters with trophy collectors. There is nothing wrong with trophy HUNTING, but I do have issues with trophy COLLECTORS.

I don't think I dealt with this enough in my last post. Sorry, I'm pretty sick and not as sharp as I'd like currently. This is so condescending and arrogant. You call me uneducated because I don't agree with you, not based on anything incorrect or ignorant that I've said. Then you throw out what is and isn't wrong based on... ? Who knows!? How did you reach the conclusion that there is nothing wrong with one kind of killing and then take issue with another?

 

[freedumbdclxvi]

So, blanket statements about AR groups are an issue, but blanket statements about hunters are dandy? Being a hunter does not make one "morally bankrupt", just as being for animal rights doesn't mean you want to end pet ownership.

 

[pitbulllady]

I don't take issue with killing domestic livestock, thistles. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who raise Cain over hunters shooting a deer, but have no qualms about devouring a big juicy steak. It's still killing animals, which you obviously DO have issues with. Not one of the anti's/AR's has even answered my question as to where, or who, provided your in-depth intel over what hunting is like, since you don't have first-hand experience to draw upon. Mind answering that one for me? What are your sources? Or for that matter, why the life of a deer or a feral hog matters so much more than the life of a cow or a domestic pig, why is it so horrible to take the life of one, but kill and eat the other? Are YOU a vegan yourself, don't believe in using ANY part of an animal or anything derived from an animal?

pitbulllady

 

[Thistles]

I don't take issue with killing domestic livestock, thistles. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who raise Cain over hunters shooting a deer, but have no qualms about devouring a big juicy steak. It's still killing animals, which you obviously DO have issues with. Not one of the anti's/AR's has even answered my question as to where, or who, provided your in-depth intel over what hunting is like, since you don't have first-hand experience to draw upon. Mind answering that one for me? What are your sources? Or for that matter, why the life of a deer or a feral hog matters so much more than the life of a cow or a domestic pig, why is it so horrible to take the life of one, but kill and eat the other? Are YOU a vegan yourself, don't believe in using ANY part of an animal or anything derived from an animal?

pitbulllady

I've answered every one of those questions already. Thanks for respecting me enough to read what I've already written.

 

[Stirmi]

I'm not a hunter nor do I want to but hunting is a good thing in certain places for example where I live we are overran with white tail deer due to a lack of predators unfortunatley a few decades ago the deer population became sooo bad that the deer began eating the bark off of trees an they became sick and paralyzed in their back legs which caused them to drag their back legs, the state than allowed a deer hunt to manage populations and now we have a healthy balance. That is one way of this being good. Also why is hunting bad but fishing isn't because that was never brought up yet

 

[BobGrill]

Obviously we've got some very opinionated individuals here on both sides. You guys probably are never going to see eye to eye on this topic, so maybe we should just drop the debate altogether before it turns ugly. Just my two cents.

 

[Thistles]

I'm not a hunter nor do I want to but hunting is a good thing in certain places for example where I live we are overran with white tail deer due to a lack of predators unfortunatley a few decades ago the deer population became sooo bad that the deer began eating the bark off of trees an they became sick and paralyzed in their back legs which caused them to drag their back legs, the state than allowed a deer hunt to manage populations and now we have a healthy balance. That is one way of this being good. Also why is hunting bad but fishing isn't because that was never brought up yet

I think I already addressed some of this. I think sport fishing is bad, and commercial fishing is even worse. Hunting deer is unfortunately necessary now because we've hunted wolves and cougars so aggressively. But apparently the wolf population is ok now so we should go back to slaughtering them even though they're only in a few states and the deer, as you noted, are still out of control.

I also hunted and fished myself when I was younger, which I now find shameful and regrettable.

This is another example of you conflating two different issues: the current benefit to hunting deer and the clear detriment of hunting their predators.

I guess I can do the same for PBL.

I don't take issue with killing domestic livestock, thistles. Just pointing out the hypocrisy of the people who raise Cain over hunters shooting a deer, but have no qualms about devouring a big juicy steak. It's still killing animals, which you obviously DO have issues with.

Or for that matter, why the life of a deer or a feral hog matters so much more than the life of a cow or a domestic pig, why is it so horrible to take the life of one, but kill and eat the other?

I actually think it's worse to raise animals for slaughter. The ill-effects on the environment are much worse.

Furthermore, killing invasive species (feral hogs, cats, dogs...) is necessary. Also, see above quote directed to Stirmi.

Not one of the anti's/AR's has even answered my question as to where, or who, provided your in-depth intel over what hunting is like, since you don't have first-hand experience to draw upon. Mind answering that one for me? What are your sources?

I know what's involved in hunting. I'm from rural Virginia and recently lived in rural Oregon. People (including some friends and family of mine) take time off work for hunting season there. I also hunted and fished myself when I was younger, which I now find shameful and regrettable.

Are YOU a vegan yourself, don't believe in using ANY part of an animal or anything derived from an animal?

I'm a vegan and I'm capable of making these distinctions.

I will add to this that it isn't possible to be TRULY vegan and not use anything animal derived in our current society, but it's a good goal. I also have cats which of course eat meat.

So, blanket statements about AR groups are an issue, but blanket statements about hunters are dandy? Being a hunter does not make one "morally bankrupt", just as being for animal rights doesn't mean you want to end pet ownership.

Sorry, just saw this post. No, blanket statements are bad and unfair regardless of which side they're from. That was a poor way for me to put it and I hope my other posts decrying generalizations on both sides make up for it. Being a hunter doesn't necessarily make one completely amoral, but it does reflect poorly on a person in almost all cases.

 

[The Snark]

So let's sum this up so far. Animal rights groups are evil. People who run around stroking their bang sticks are doing a necessary job. Vegan is a dirty word and unattainable, therefore they are all hypocrites. What else?

 

[BobGrill]

You guys need to just learn to agree to disagree.

 

[The Snark]

You guys need to just learn to agree to disagree.

I disagree. A while back a friend of mine and I agreed to disagree on a quite important matter. Then he went and got dead. So the soup is half finished, and we are going to have to take the whole thing and recook it in our next incarnations. That doesn't work at all well, yes? Therefore I resolved that I will disagree when an attempt is made to agree on disagreeing and prefer to stand firmly in the soup, demanding that the entire world must always agree, or disagree, unanimously, with my opinion. And of course I cannot possibly agree with such capitulation as I am, approximately, full of fecal matter about 50% of the time and that would make the agreers a bunch of schmucks or sycophants and the disagreers just a loose pile of covert hostile intentions. However, feel free to agree to disagree on agreeing with my disagreeing and disagree with my agreeing. Fair enoughe?

 

[BobGrill]

When presented with a reasonable bit of logic, just spam away.

 

[Galapoheros]

"I don't know what you're talking about. Why don't you explain what I have been convinced of and what "contradicting theories" I should be taking in to account."

I can't get the "reply with quote" to work today for some reason.

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/674/are-humans-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-by-nature

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/early-human-meat-eaters-vegetarian_n_1765521.html

http://thepaleodiet.com/getting-started-with-the-paleo-diet/

Opinions, theories, it's obvious which you believe, no reason to elaborate on it. I'll nibble on the bait but will get loose from arguing which is correct because it's like arguing over religion and politics at this point which is interesting to do ...sometimes. My opinion is that we are omnivores. Each could look around and come up with contradicting info on this topic.

 

[Smokehound714]

Peta is a terrorist organization. They have used violence on several occasions to attempt to intimidate people.

One person, Ray coronado, was paid to bomb buildings by Ingrid newkirk, and even worse, went to campuses nationwide, teaching students how to make incendiary devices.

Despite actual evidence directly linking them to several arsons and instances of assaults, they still get away with these horrific acts. The corporate media is protecting them, often portraying PETA positively, generally only publicizing instances where deluded washed-out actresses either Being naked for the sake of animal welfare (lolwut), or wearing ridiculous bikinis made of lettuce, ignoring the instances of brutality and bombings.

They virtually never talk about the walk-in freezers, or the killing of animals, or the times where peta supporters viciously assault people buying meat. And when they DO, Ingrid newkirk is never mentioned. Hmmmm..


The ASPCA should be added to this discussion, as they're another horrible group, also known for misleading the public into thinking their donations will go to shelters, when they definitely do NOT.