Hunting and fishing are neither inhumane nor cruel - Tuesday, Apr. 22, 2008

It seems that the author is bent on demonizing recreational hunting and fishing by comparing these behaviors with psychopathic destruction wrought by the likes of Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolf Hitler or John Wayne ...

[Van_Bowhunts]

BRAVO!!!

[longhunter]

Let's see how long it takes for Jesus the Vegan, Angel of Mercy 2, Vegan Cinnamon Girl, Patty K, Tracy K, Bootis, ahunterscratchin ghead, DirtBagHunters, Tammy, Jesse, DirtBagHunters, aaw hunter,
Petite Angel of God, MAY HUNTERS DROP DEAD, Petite Angel of God, little Animal Angel, Shannon Davis. Tiffany, Bo Otis, Sweet Tangerine, Tammy k, Satan loves hunters

post her same photos an websites here

[longhunter]

That didn't take long she beat me to the post but I was right same old crap.

[Packers Rule]

Jesus the Vegan wrote:

From a Christian ARA about "killing plants" lol
Thank you very much for sending your excellent, and truthful, response to Natalie Angier's comments
After receiving similar comments to hers about "killing carrots", etc., almost weekly, we have come to the conclusion that these people are not interested in the truth.
They know the truth that animals feel pain and plants do not, but they are trying to subvert the truth in an attempt to justify their lust for meat and their insensitivity to the pain and suffering that they are contributing to
Your response to eat neither animal nor plant if it causes pain is right on target, but we believe these people already know this truth
The simple truth is that these people don't care that they are causing pain and suffering, which to us is evil.
All they seem to want is their "pound of flesh" at any cost, and anything that they can do to subvert attention away from their lust for animal products helps them justify their acts to themselves and their fellow flesh eaters
Similarly, hunters try to subvert attention away for the fact that they take pleasure in killing, which reflects an evil intent - So they come up with all kinds of excuses to subvert attention away from the truth:
"They give the meat the to the poor"
"If they didn't kill some of the deer, the rest of the herd would die of starvation"
"They only hunt for food, and they always kill instantly with the first shot"
To us, Natalie Angier's and these other people's comments show only a hardness of heart
In the Love of the Lord,
Frank

And your comments show a hardening of the brain. Get over it Tiera.

[hunter80]

What are the odds that these people so concerned about hurting animals are pro abortion?

[Van_Bowhunts]

Why someone hunts is a personal matter. Many do it to spend time outdoors with friends or family. Others hunt to continue a tradition passed down from their parents and grandparents. Some go for the satisfaction of providing their own meat or the challenge of outwitting a wild animal. Many hunt simply because they feel an urge to do so.
It's hard to generalize what hunters are doing when they go afield each fall. But it is possible to explain what hunters are not doing, and to shed light on some aspects of hunting that might puzzle those who don't participate. Hunters aren't killing animals needlessly.
People who say there's no need to kill animals for meat when it can be bought in a grocery store don't understand how food happens: Whether someone eats venison or beef, a big brown-eyed mammal has to die first. The animal doesn't care whether you pay someone else to kill it or you do it yourself.
Of course, vegetarians don't kill animals. Or do they? Most vegetable production is done at the expense of wild creatures, either by converting wildlife habitat to cropland or requiring the application of chemical pesticides and fertilizers. Soybeans and corn, for example, are often grown on wetlands that have been drained and plowed. Without a place to nest, a hen mallard doesn't die, but she doesn't raise any young, either.
1. Hunters aren't being cruel to wild animals.
Most wild animals don't pass away in comfort, sedated by veterinary medication. They usually die a violent, agonizing death. A deer not shot eventually will be killed by a car, predator, exposure, or starvation. Of course, hunters don't do individual wild animals any favors by killing them, but they also don't do anything unnaturally cruel.
2. Hunters aren't dangerous, inept, or trigger-happy.
Hunting would seem more prone to accidents and fatalities than outdoor activities that don't use firearms. Not so. According to National Safety Council statistics, far more people per 100,000 participants are injured while bicycling or playing baseball than while hunting. One reason for hunting's safety record: Most states require young hunters to pass a firearms safety course. As do all activities, hunting has its share of scofflaws. But most hunters obey the law and act ethically. To nab the wrongdoers among them, hunters created Turn In Poachers, a nonprofit organization that offers rewards for information leading to the arrest of fish and game law violators.
3. Hunters aren't harming wildlife populations.
Hunters see to that out of self-interest. That's why they support state and federal conservation agencies limiting seasons to just a few weeks or months a year, limiting the number of animals they kill, and placing restrictions on killing females of some species. These regulations help ensure that wildlife populations stay healthy. They also make the pursuit of game more difficult, requiring hunters to use their wits, patience, and hunting skills.
4. Hunters aren't using non-hunters? tax dollars.
Hunters pay their own way, and then some. Hunters fund almost all Department of Natural Resources habitat acquisition and wildlife research with their license fees and a federal excise tax on hunting equipment. In addition, their financial support pays to improve populations of non-game wildlife. Wetland destruction has wiped out the habitats of many bird species, causing their numbers to decline. Were it not for wetlands bought and improved with state and federal waterfowl stamp revenue and with the contributions of hunting conservation organizations, hunters and others who like to watch wildlife would today see fewer marsh wrens, pied-billed grebes, Forster's terns, and other wetland birds. These are some things that hunters aren't doing.
What I suspect most are doing--if they hunt for the reasons I do--is fulfilling a need to be part of the natural world that observation alone can't satisfy.
TRUE STORY!
PUT EM' DOWN!

[Van_Bowhunts]

Tiny Dancer wrote:

<quoted text>
WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?

The Hunters/Conservationlist –
Hunters have done more for the environment and conservation than any terrorist groups. In 1937, hunters lobbied Congress to pass the Pittman-Robinson Act, an 11 percent tax on hunting equipment which, combined with license fees, now provides $700 million a year for protection of wildlife habitat on public lands. And Ducks Unlimited alone has conserved an estimated 7.2 million acres of waterfowl habitat.
Numerous species including migratory birds (ducks and geese), elk, deer, antelope, wild turkey and many other species were rescued from the endangered list and are now not only surviving, but thriving. Pittman-Robertson was a rare legislative model for efficiency and a godsend for hunters and animals alike.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates that through these special taxes and license fees, America`s sportsmen contribute $3.5 million each day to wildlife conservation.
Managing Lands for Wildlife
Of the P-R funds available to the States, more than 62 percent is used to buy, develop, maintain, and operate wildlife management areas. Some 4 million acres have been purchased outright since the program began, and nearly 40 million acres are managed for wildlife under agreements with other landowners.
Various kinds of land have been acquired, including winter rangelands necessary for big game animals in the North and West, and wetlands, essential to ducks and geese for nesting, wintering, and stopover feeding and rest during migrations.
Along with land acquisition, better management methods have yielded remarkable results. Some examples include creating small waterholes in the southwest so that wildlife may drink; planting trees and shrubs in some Great Plains localities as woody cover to shelter pheasants, quail and other wildlife during winter storms; creating clearings in heavily wooded areas of the Northeast to provide more varied food and shelter for deer, woodcock, rabbits, and ruffed grouse; and controlled burning of brush and tall grass in parts of the South to stimulate growth of seed-producing plants for wild turkey and quail.
Research: Science Replaces Guesswork
P-R has aided greatly aided in a nationwide effort to enlist science in the cause of wildlife conservation. About 26 percent of P-R funding to the States is used for surveys and research.
Surveys, now employing computers and space-age technology, provide solid information on the location and activities of species, the make-up of their population by age and sex, and whether their numbers are rising or declining -- essential data in managing the species and its habitat.
Non-Hunters and Non-Game Benefit, Too
Although Pittman-Robertson is financed wholly by firearms users and archery enthusiasts, its benefits cover a much larger number of people who never hunt but do enjoy such wildlife pastimes as birdwatching, nature photography, painting and sketching, and a wide variety of other outdoor pursuits. Perhaps President Ronald Reagan stated it best at the Pittman-Robertson 50th Anniversary when he said: "Those who pay the freight are those who purchase firearms, ammunition, and, in recent years, archery equipment."
Helping the Hungry –
The USDA estimates that in 2000, 10.5 million U.S. households (or approximately one in ten) were food-insecure — i.e., they didn't reliably have enough food to meet their basic needs. About 33 million people lived in these households. About 22 percent of all children were living in poverty, and many seniors were also food-insecure.
Hunters for the Hungry Since the program began in 1991, hunters have donated more than three million pounds of venison.
Based on the information provided it’s an obvious choice as to who really cares about the environment/animals.
TRUE STORY!
PUT EM' DOWN!

[hunter80]

Van Bowhunts makes many excellent points about conservationists. Tiny dancer doesn't get that abortion hurts also. As for helping, donations to planned parenthood could help teach people to use condoms and other devices for birth control rather than abortions.

[Van_Bowhunts]

http://www.all-creatures.org/hope/DOE/2%20-%2...

WHAT A LOAD OF BS!!!! What a fraud, Anthony Marr is nothing more than a glorified fence salesman...he doesn't care about animals because if he did he would want them to roam freely, and not be fenced in like caged prisoners...it's funny when you think of it, ARA's cause so much damage and destruction to free animals from cages, and yet Marr wants to fence them in....hmmmmm does that make any sense?? We'll see if the smart people can put two and two together, I'm sure they can!

TRUE STORY!

[Van_Bowhunts]

WHY ANIMALS HAVE NO RIGHTS

"A right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another. The target against whom such a claim may be registered can be a single person, a group, a community, or (perhaps) all humankind. The content of rights claims also varies greatly: repayment of loans, nondiscrimination by employers, noninterference by the state, and
so on.

To comprehend any genuine right fully, therefore, we must know who holds the right, against whom it is held, and to what it is a right.

The differing targets, contents, and sources of rights, and their inevitable conflict, together weave a tangled web. Notwithstanding all
such complications, this much is clear about rights in general: they are in every case claims, or potential claims, within a community of
moral agents.

Rights arise, and can be intelligibly defended, only among beings who actually do, or can, make moral claims against one another. Whatever else rights may be, therefore, they are necessarily human; their possessors are persons, human beings.

Animals (that is, nonhuman animals, the ordinary sense of that word) lack this capacity for free moral judgment. They are not beings of a kind capable of exercising or responding to moral
claims. Animals therefore have no rights, and they can have none. This is the core of the argument about the alleged rights of animals. The holders of rights must have the capacity to
comprehend rules of duty, governing all including themselves. In applying such rules, the holders of rights must recognize possible conflicts between what is in their own interest and what
is just. Only in a community of beings capable of
self-restricting moral judgments can the concept of a right be correctly invoked.

Humans have such moral capabilities. They are in this sense self-legislative, are members of communities governed by moral rules, and do possess rights. Animals do not have such moral
capacities. They are not morally self-legislative, cannot possibly be members of a truly moral community, and therefore
cannot possess rights. In conducting research on animal subjects, therefore, we do not violate their rights, because they have none to violate.

Genuinely moral acts have an internal as well as an external dimension. Thus, in law, an act can be criminal only when the guilty deed, the actus reus, is done with a guilty mind, mens rea. No animal can ever commit a crime; bringing animals to criminal trial is the mark of primitive ignorance. The claims of moral right are similarly inapplicable to them. Does a lion have
a right to eat a baby zebra? Does a baby zebra have a right not to be eaten? Such questions, mistakenly invoking the concept of right where it does not belong, do not make good sense. Those who
condemn biomedical research because it violates "animal rights" commit the same blunder.

TRUE STORY!
PUT EM' DOWN!

[Wolverine]

Nephesh 2 wrote:

<quoted text>
*yawn*

Yawn this! His facts are exactly why we will be hunting until the end of time. Put that in your koolaid drinking ARA pipe & smoke it.

[Dave]

Did You Know?

From July 1998 through December 2005, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five
defenseless creatures every day. And PETA reportedly has facilities near its
Norfolk, Virginia headquarters for cremating the remains.

Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90
percent of the animals it took in during 2005. And its angel-of-death pattern
shows no sign of changing.

Get the full story here at;

http://petakillsanimals.com

[Wolverine]

Dave wrote:

Did You Know?
From July 1998 through December 2005, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA)
killed over 14,400 dogs, cats, and other "companion animals." That's more than five
defenseless creatures every day. And PETA reportedly has facilities near its
Norfolk, Virginia headquarters for cremating the remains.
Not counting the pets PETA spayed and neutered, the group put to death over 90
percent of the animals it took in during 2005. And its angel-of-death pattern
shows no sign of changing.
Get the full story here at;
http://petakillsanimals.com

These are the same folks trying to outlaw my hunting, trapping & fishing rights. They can kill an animal (pets) but I can not kill a wild animal or fish. They folks are certifiable.

[eddy]

I love guys

[joe]

he deserves a sensible stamped on his forehead

yay

[omnavore]

Plants driving force in life is to create offspring, yet we force them to grow here it's convent for us and rape them of the opportunity to procreate and kill them when we think we have gotten the most out of them.
Why is it good to do this to plants yet bad to eat animals??? I don't get it....