I want to send my congratulations to PETA, ASPCA, and other alphabet soup organizations for crushing the greatest threat to animals in the U.S. -- dog fighting. Now that they have some time on their hands, should they try to stop the slaughter of innocent ducks, geese, quail, fish, deer, and bears at the hands of barbarians better known as hunters and sportfishermen??
If they shouldn't, why not? How are they different? Are dogs better than the aforementioned animals? (Looking for honest discussion. No sarcastic or idiotic answers please)
2007-08-30 16:41:14 · 10 answers · asked by DurtyBurd 1 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
When i say same vigor, i mean will they go and shut down the hunting and fishing industries? Instead of picketing Nike, the NFL, the Falcons, and the courthouse, will they picket outside conventions, gun shows, and sporting goods stores? I have my doubts b/c of the most powerful alphabet soup org -- the NRA.
2007-08-30 16:51:23 · update #1
Another note:
when i say hunting, I'm not talking about hunting & fishing for food, just for sport... Just to mount the deer head on the wall.
2007-08-30 17:18:25 · update #2
Note #3.. My premise is that a dog is an animal. Game are animals. Both activities end in their deaths. Also, there are those of us who range from being hostile to/afraid of to being indifferent towards dogs (esp pit bulls, dobermans, & german shepherds). So we see the public reaction and don't understand the extreme sensitivity and feelings towards dogs.
2007-08-30 18:06:22 · update #3
well one thing is that hunting isn't always the barbaric slaughter of animals it can be a humane way to control animal populations as long as you are dealing with ethical hunters. I see my self as an ethical hunter who respects nature and what it gives back to me but on the other hand there are people who disrespect nature, and don't take their game ethically. So if there is a way to weed out these people who give hunting a bad reputation it should be continued as a way for people to enjoy the outdoors. For me it is a great opportunity to bond with my father and brother on a peaceful trip in the woods.
2007-08-30 16:53:37 · answer #1 · answered by vtsoxfan92 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I really can't see a duck, geese, quail, fish, deer or bears as man's best friend. Usually, dogs depend on humans for food. They live with humans, are closer to, more loving and trusting of humans. So yes, there is a difference.
As for Peta, this is the first time that I have ever agreed with them. For the most part, I think they're silly. All they did, actually was to show up.
As for hunters, fishermen and sportsmen. Well, the best men I know are all of those. They are ethical, do not use dogs,and hunt like they love the hunt more that the results it brings. They also catch and release most of the fish. They are good men. They have integrity, they care about their fellow man. Also, they are not **** stirrers.
Which is quiet possibly what you are trying to do here.
2007-08-31 00:28:34 · answer #2 · answered by bella 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Peta are in it for the publicity and the shock factor and that is all.
I was only thinking this the other day they target licensed kangaroo shooters and ignore amateur hunters who would not kill humanly.
They don't go throwing buckets of blood on hunters at the beginning of the season in fact they are conspicuously absent.
They ignore the slaughter of whales by the Japanese but go after circus performers.
They forget about the exploitation of Tigers in China and go for the easy target farmers trying to make an honest living.
Some Peta cause are worthwhile but they seem to pick the easy battles unlike Greenpeace.
2007-08-31 00:15:41 · answer #3 · answered by molly 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
As a former hunter/fisher during my childhood (who has now turned vegetarian), I can objectively see both sides. This will not apply to ALL circumstances but if all hunting/fishing was halted, some of the creatures would soon be so overpopulated they would be starving to death and be so numerous as to be a hazard. Just look at the deer population and you will have your answer. Every year several counties in WI issue "extra" permits based on the surveys that clearly prove deer have become too numerous. Car crashes are steadily increasing. You would think the insurance companies would be putting out a bounty on the four legged creatures. A friend of mine had $4800 damage to his car because ONE deer chose to run in front of him rather than stay in the brush where it was standing. It took out the hood, both fenders, the radiator, the air conditioning condenser, and the windshield! Labor to fix all that was about 38% of the cost.
Vick was deliberately and methodically causing or allowing dogs to be ripped to shreds by putting them in a pen to fight other dogs. Nothing edible there that I know of!!!
At least with the barbaric hunters I know, they are there to bring food home. It doesn't lessen the effect of killing, but it is not torturing the creatures for the sake of fun and profit.
Many years ago when this country had a recession far worse than any I have seen in the last 30 years, my parents had no work and could not afford gas for the car. My father carried his gun 10 miles out to the farm of a friend to hunt. And he carried a big bag of animals all the way back to feed his family. That food cost him nothing more than his sweat and hard work. We didn't even have enough money to buy vegetables. We grew them in the back yard, but you have to wait for everything to grow and ripen.
I prefer vegetarian diet, I promote it to all who will listen, but if hunting was halted there would quickly be a need to apply birth control to some of the creatures. Don't laugh, I hear WI is considering it for deer. Some kind of inoculation, probably given by a dart gun. That would certainly be more humane than allowing them to overpopulate and then issue additional permits so hunters could blow their brains out.
I agree with you in principle but there has to be moderation and a backup plan to phase out hunting in a manageable way.
2007-08-31 00:13:42 · answer #4 · answered by SEEKER 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
queen is right
as far as i'm concerned i think all killing of animals for sport should be stopped, period end. civilized human beings should be able to enjoy sports where innocent life of any kind doesn't have to be harmed....you know, evolve a little??
and i'm very serious, just in case you take this to be sarcasm or idiocy
2007-08-30 23:52:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes they should go after hunters.
that way it will give the hunters a new sport. A long hair dope smoking weirdo running around in the woods sounds like a lot more fun to hunt then deer.
MY HUNTING DOGS WILL HAVE HOURS OF FUN BEFORE I GET THERE.
2007-08-31 03:57:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
They do, all the time, if you new about PETA you would know this. They just don't pick and choose who to go after. They are on top of everyone.
2007-08-30 23:45:46 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
peta did not go after vick...they merely reacted to what the fbi learned about him....peta had nothing to do with the case
2007-08-30 23:56:51 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
nope... they bagged their big fish of the year. Targeting dog-fighting was easy since they were gift-wrapped a big name NFL quarterback.
2007-08-30 23:55:04 · answer #9 · answered by atl2lax 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
peta is just a weird cult....and before you start telling me what
a &*%& i am, which is true...do a little research on theri
"queen mother"
2007-08-31 00:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by evensout 3 · 2⤊ 1⤋