Who reads anti-hunting websites?
05-01-2008, 01:29 PM
#12
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 202
RE: Who reads anti-hunting websites?
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
05-01-2008, 01:35 PM
#13
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 9,445
RE: Who reads anti-hunting websites?
ORIGINAL: fishm@n
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
05-01-2008, 01:38 PM
#14
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Polk County FL.
Posts: 769
RE: Who reads anti-hunting websites?
ORIGINAL: Schultzy
From what you just said they sound pretty uneducated to me!! Book smarts and common sense are 2 different things!! The common sense person is far more educated in my book then any 4 year book smart college grad.
ORIGINAL: fishm@n
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
05-01-2008, 01:42 PM
#15
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Central Minnesota
Posts: 9,445
RE: Who reads anti-hunting websites?
ORIGINAL: fishm@n
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
Don't kid yourself into thinking many of these PETA typesare un-educated (except maybe the Pamela Anderson types).. They on average are probably more educated than the average hunter.. having said that they are also much more urban and out of touch with the wildlife and wildlife issues. They live in a fantasy land where they think that by not killing any animal that everything will be better. They have no clue thatthe vast majority of wildlife are supported by hunting and hunters dollars. They do nothing to combat habitat destruction and control populations (which would be out of control if they had their way). Our support of hunting and better yet funding of wildlife habitat organizations (like the Rocky Mountian ElK Foundation for example) is the sane and correct thing and luckily every state's (that I know of)fish and game commission's are on our side.
The sad thing is these people are gaining strength through numbers and can greatly influence wildlife policies that are put on the ballot. Here in Washington state which has a large urban population in Seattle, we have seen a couple uninformed wildlife policies passed by general vote (banning of dogs for cougar hunting and banning the use of leg/body hold traps). The hilarious part is that now we have cougars in these people's backyards and they're pristine lawns are being torn up by moles since you can't use traps on them any longer. I think they tried to repeal part of the law for moles since moles aren't as cute and fuzzy as a fox or coyote.
They are way out of touch, but don't underestimate their strength in numbers!
05-01-2008, 02:54 PM
#18
Fork Horn
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Escondido
Posts: 479
RE: Who reads anti-hunting websites?
We have Peacocks running around our neighborhood (San Diego County, CA). They were left here by a homeowner that moved long ago. They are a PITA. Crap all over our front porch, Eat some of the landscaping, Scare the crap out of guests (which I kinda enjoy), when they are on roost in the evening and something startles them or bugs them they make a racket. The neighborhood dogs have gotten a few of them (good dog that, Louie).
One of the ladies down the street is quite the animal rights type and when I would talk about how big a pain these things were and that I would like to take them out she would get all over me telling me I was heartless and such.
Well, things changed a bit and the Peacocks started roosting on their chimney for a while making all their mess and noise at her house one spring. Guess who got a call to come and shoot the beautiful peacocks? Me. I told her I wasn't that heartless and laughed at her. Her husband is a good guy and we pickoff rabbits together with a pellet gun.
For the most part the extreme animal rights people are ignorant to reality. I don't read the websites but, I do like sitting down a talking to them about their beliefs. I had another neighbor try to tell me that he was for banning all guns if the gov't wanted to because " the gov't knows what is best for us". How about that gem?[:'(][:'(][:'(]
One of the ladies down the street is quite the animal rights type and when I would talk about how big a pain these things were and that I would like to take them out she would get all over me telling me I was heartless and such.
Well, things changed a bit and the Peacocks started roosting on their chimney for a while making all their mess and noise at her house one spring. Guess who got a call to come and shoot the beautiful peacocks? Me. I told her I wasn't that heartless and laughed at her. Her husband is a good guy and we pickoff rabbits together with a pellet gun.
For the most part the extreme animal rights people are ignorant to reality. I don't read the websites but, I do like sitting down a talking to them about their beliefs. I had another neighbor try to tell me that he was for banning all guns if the gov't wanted to because " the gov't knows what is best for us". How about that gem?[:'(][:'(][:'(]
05-01-2008, 09:01 PM
#20
Giant Nontypical
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 6,575
RE: Who reads anti-hunting websites?
PETA? People Eating Tasty Animals? What's wrong with this group? haha.
Not really sure what the avg hunter is....nor the avg peta member.....would say that most are out of touch or simply unaware of the facts.
It shocks me how many people when I mention hunting to....have no clue that in this country you're not allowed to simply just go out in the woods at any time of the year and shoot whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want......and these are normal people, not PETA, not hunters, just reg joes, have no clue, and I would suspect most people feel this way......no wonder PETA gets tehm to join, they probably just say join peta or hunters will kill all of them off.
Man evolved by eating meat, its natural, we may now be able to survive without meat, though I would state that it's unnatural and unhealthy! vitamin B12 for instance has no natural plant source.....ie you can only get it from animal sources.....ie we need to consume animals, and ie supplements of B12 need animal sources, less they are synthisized in a lab, which I still would suspect need animal sources. Either way, anyone who would read about the evolution of man would come to understand that consuming meat is healthy and natural.
Not really sure what the avg hunter is....nor the avg peta member.....would say that most are out of touch or simply unaware of the facts.
It shocks me how many people when I mention hunting to....have no clue that in this country you're not allowed to simply just go out in the woods at any time of the year and shoot whatever the hell you want whenever the hell you want......and these are normal people, not PETA, not hunters, just reg joes, have no clue, and I would suspect most people feel this way......no wonder PETA gets tehm to join, they probably just say join peta or hunters will kill all of them off.
Man evolved by eating meat, its natural, we may now be able to survive without meat, though I would state that it's unnatural and unhealthy! vitamin B12 for instance has no natural plant source.....ie you can only get it from animal sources.....ie we need to consume animals, and ie supplements of B12 need animal sources, less they are synthisized in a lab, which I still would suspect need animal sources. Either way, anyone who would read about the evolution of man would come to understand that consuming meat is healthy and natural.