I agree that the Lesbos have the right to protect their own land from trespassers, but the way the sun portrays hunters makes me sick, I couldn't even finish the article.

Nope, I am not a right wring psychopaths, whatever.

Once again I will explain, for the third time, its about how the article uses its words carefully to demonize hunters. I know that general area, and I don't believe thier big tale of having to do all they do to keep hunters out. There is huntable land all around them. I guarantee, a deer was shot before and has ran on thier land. And they may have seen it first.And somebody may have had to track it on thier land. Which I have no problem with on my land.

This is my hugest issue with any post of yoru silver. You won't read or comprehend before you actually post. Its extremely annoying. You just want people to hear you.

And you really believe this garbage? I have hunted my whole life and have killed over 50 or more deer, and haven't seen all the carnage they are lying about.

QUOTE:Feinberg and her life partner, Lierra Lenhard,

ENOUGH SAID!

You can probably add Anne Arundel and Howard Co.'s to that group as well. The funny thing is, in PG, Mont, AA, and How Co.'s you can take unlimited does LOL. There is a vocal minority of anti's here but I think you have that in most states. Usually, those with the weakest argument against something make the most noise with the least truth. That is why they are a vocal minority LOL. Despite this vocal minority we just had some Sunday hunts added to our season. Two good pro-hunting orgs to join in MD are the Maryland Bowhunters Society and the Maryland Sportmen's Association. By giving strength in numbers to those orgs we can combat people like these lady's.

Quicksilver, I don't get your defense of this article. Of course bigcountry is not saying people should
trespass on these ladies land or poach. What bigcountry is talking about is blatant anti-hunter bias
in the article. It is plain as day.

As most lefties who cry about "Faux News" don't seem to understand, bias is not demonstrated by
out and out telling people they are wrong. It is done primarily in what stories are run (conservaties have
only recently been successful in forcing the media to examine stories via the internet which would have
been ignored), and by selective quotation, selective sourcing, etc. A skilled writer can pretend to be
objective, while being anything but.

It is beyond common knowledge that the editorial boards and reporters at most newspapers are very
liberal. In surveys, over 90% of reporters admit to being pro-abortion and voting Democrat. I'm sure
anti-hunting could be added to that over 90% number. These guys aren't "speaking truth to power,"
instead they are living in a liberal echo chamber. They have the power and the microphone and they
use it to further their beliefs. That is what people (who are biased by nature) do.

BTW, do you really think a true blue believer in animal rights (for example that believes it as bad as killing
a person), would think twice about lying or making stuff up to further their agenda? In their eyes, if a
lie saves a deer's life, then they probably feel that is the morally "right" thing to do.

I agree that those hunters should not be trespassing on their land. On another point, they article says they consider the deer "their pets"?!?!?!?!? Are you frickin serious?? If anything these two people are numbing these deer to the dangers of the world and they become dependent on the hand feeding and petting!! They think they are helping "their" herd by doing this when in reality they are making the deer dependent on them and thus, hurting them. Agreed???

By the way...sounds like that paper sucks!!!

No not really. The point I was trying to make was the non-hunters do believe this. Stories of deer running around with arrows sticking out of their head is not good PR for bow hunters.

Whether it's true or not, non-hunters think that most hunters trespass and shoot deer in the head based on the few articles they read each year.

Don't blame the newspaper blame the 5 % of the slob hunters thatgive the 95% of us bad names.

I wasn't defending the article. I was just pointing out that BC was crying about how these evil lesbians were patrolling their property and blaspheming the hunting community. Meanwhile, all of which are things that they're well within their rights to do.He's on the right-wing extreme, soI waskindly pointing out the hypocrisy from that perspective.

Now, I'll defend the article.

I just don't see the anti-hunter bias.The author practically makes this lesbian couple out to be guerilla anti-hunting terrorist nutjobs. It's actually very well-written and comical in some respects.

First of all: Do you think the author had to point out that these women were lesbians? Nope. But shedid. Do you think they could've gotten a better picture of Enid and Lierra? Absolutely. But instead, the author chose to use the photo where Enid looks like a total psycho with wild eyes and crazy hair...and her girlfriend is wieldingsome kind of sledge hammer. Obviously,the authorwas trying to say "Seriously, what is this world comingto?" Look at these crazy people.

I liked how she pointed out that Enid talks to the deer, and calls them her "Sweeties." LMAO Another good nugget was when the author made a special note that Lierra is a crazy cat lady - with a home with a specially-designed catwalk for her feline friends.


This article definitelyisn't "anti-hunting" propaganda. It's a humorous article about two neurotic lesbians who have become obsessed with defending wildlife, and have pushed it to ridiculous limits. This wasn't an anti-hunting article. It was aJerry Springer episode in pen.We took a couple of whackos, pretended to beinterested in their plight, while we publicly made fun of them, and they were none-the-wiser.

You make a good point quick for some readers,

Here is probably the worst part of the article:

"Which made it all the more traumatic to discover a shot-to-pieces doe dying in their gazebo one winter, to see a deer who'd lost an antler trying to dislodge the arrow in his side, to watch Stumpy, who still staggers gamely to the corn feeder out back even though part of his hind leg was shot off three years ago.

And Smiling Buck. After he was struck with an arrow in the side of the head, he took the better part of a year to die. The medicated apples helped for a while, but the infection kept flaring up. It was awful to see him standing there with a rivulet of pus flowing down his neck and that soft smile."

But, I don't think everyone will see it like you do and I'm not sure if the author meant it to be tongue in
cheek (especially if they don't know anything about hunting). Non-hunters could easily get some
horrible mental pictures out of this story and not realize it is over the top, and they could easily side
with the crazy lesbians who are defending these poor creatures against the brutal hunters.