# Peta vs. Sportsmans Alliance



## steadyeddie (Apr 27, 2004)

Last night on the O'Reily fox show, Peta wanted and a pro basketball player Maulbary or something lilke that, wanted to know the difference between dog fighting and hunters killing animals. Maulbary, Stephon, the BB pro, thinks what we as hunters do and what Mike Vick did with dogs is no different. The Vice-president of SA, he gave a weak answer. I just wished they would have had Ted Nugent on and or Wayne LaPierre, vice-president of the NRA, or John C. Sigler, President of the NRA, or even a well educated Hunter Ed. Instructor, or IHEA people. So lets here some good answers to the question Stephon Malbury asked.


----------



## 30-30 (Mar 23, 2006)

Dog fighting: Forcing dogs to rip each other to shreds for money.

Deer hunting: The legal harvesting of food. It also keeps the population in check and prevents disease and food shortages.


----------



## Redmoon (Mar 18, 2007)

I agree. He dropped the ball. O'reiley gave him the opportunity to bring up all the reasons why hunting is good and how it's good for our families and all he could say over and over again is that hunters enjoy hunting...

You just don't get many opportunities like that. He must have got nervous and his brain froze or something.


----------



## HVAC/R Hunter (Aug 29, 2005)

The thing is Marbury doesn't think hunting is bad, but the fact that he mentions it together with dog fighting is absurd. 

These dogs were bred, raised, and trained only to fight each other. This is planned cruelty from the jump of this animals life.

I would only imagine that the worst placed shot on any "game" would put a ton of stress and pain in that animal, but if it lives it heals, and goes about its life. The dogs have been mistreated their whole lives, and they carry that with them just as abused children do.

We aren't just talking "dog fighting" either, we are talking beating, drowning, hanging, and who knows what else this idiot did to these animals, and just for fun, he was not providing food to his family, he was getting personal pleasure from these acts.

I will admit I am a little worried about all of this though. This is the last thing we need is more scrutiny from unrelated issues.

Just my take on it!


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

ok, so get this. the guy shown on the show, Kieth Allen, dogfighter from Kansas, lives in my town. everyone is afraid of him and he lives down this back road selling drugs and dogfighting. my girlfriend works for the humane society and constantly gets pit bulls she rescues and rehabilitates. i have one of this Kieth Allens dogs right now. 

on top of that, i was at the court house yesterday and the county prosecutor comes into the room saying that he has a msg from Bill O'Reily's office wanting info on this worthless POS for a story they were going to run that night. That was kinda cool. 

So i tuned into this 'dogfighting' story only to see some big bald guy stumbling over the difference between hunting and dogfighting. Couldnt the guy just mention ONE nice thing about hunting. Like FAIR CHASE!!!! yeah, we hunters kill animals and we like it. but lets be honest, its not about the food. we wont starve if we dont hunt, so we need a better answer than 'it puts food on our table'........hell, so does a lot of other things, like working. but dogs being forced to kill each other for gambling purposes couldnt be further from hunting.

we go sit in the woods and hunt, meaning we wait for the chance that something comes close enough to get a shot. then presents itself so that we can make a clean shot. all the while trying to outsmart and out wit the animal. trying to overcome their keen sense of smell, sight, hearing.......which we all know are miles above our own senses. in many ways, the animal has a much better chance than 50/50 like dogs in a fight do. ONE OF THEM WILL END UP DEAD, BOTTOM LINE. In the woods, everything could be in the hunters favor, except for one minor thing and the hunter goes home empty handed. wind, rain, smell, stick in the way, no shot, bad shot, animal gets spooked by something other than hunter, animal never stops, too far away, never see animal, animal sees you, bow/gun jams or breaks or doesnt preform,...............literally TONS of ways an animal can survive when being hunted compared to a 50/50 chance in a dog fight. 

Plus, no body is forcing deer to walk under my stand. 

Not to mention the guys defination of conservation was stupid. 'uh, people want to hunt on land with animals on it'............dumb dumb dumb

he couldnt mention the fact that conservation keeps animal numbers in check and helps sustain the lives of these animals. if they were left unchecked, they would become over populated and cause serious problems. or they would all be hunted and killed without regulations until they became extinct, just like humans have almost done and done with other species. 

Im still unsure how groups formed to 'save the planet' cant respect conservation efforts in this nation. we are trying to save land and keep land undeveloped so that future generations can expirence what we are so lucky to have. 

we finally get a chance to make an impact in the political world on national TV and now it feels like we are digging out and playing damage control from last night. Stupid O'Reily show. that was suposed to be about dog fighting and not hunting.


----------



## JustOneMoreShot (Jul 24, 2005)

The "hired help" in my office were asking me if I saw this on CNN. They were giving me a bunch of heck about how "hunting is cruel... the poor animals... it is just the same as the poor dogs fighting". I wanted to barf. I explained to them that hunting is necessary to prevent animal overpopulation, spread of disease, loss of habitat ability to support them, car v deer accidents, food provided to the table, food donated to charities/churches, and HUGE amounts of money raised by the taxes on hunting gear (billions or millions???) to support and take care of wildlife. 
Blah! They were impossible to talk to about it really. Only one person in the office heard me. I let that person read a really good article in the NRA magazine (American Hunter) Sept 2007 pg 18 title is Hunting Gets Some Respect by Frank Miniter. Excellent article I highly recommend reading it and showing it to people who are uneducated on the truth behind the PETA junk.


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

i'll search for that article. want to take a look.

forgot to mention that i did think it was funny (and somewhat poor thought) that the guy mentioned that Peta once compared the 'slaughter' of chickens to the holicaust..........

maybe not in good judgement to use such harsh words when in that compairson hunting is like killing chickens. also, sounded like a dumb fight to start,.........my dad is better than your dad---7 year old fights on the playground. nobody looks good participating and nothing is solved. Why is 'your dad better than my dad?' 

instead of explaining the point, he says well peta is stupid cause they said this one time. who cares what they said once, doesnt change the fact that your being put on the spot to ANSWER questions and you throw out something like that. ouch


----------



## Buzzkill (Aug 8, 2005)

I didnt see the show, but I went to Oreillys website to send him an email and he had this blurb up on his show archive about this topic: 

"Some have recently defended Michael Vick by comparing the illegal practice of dog fighting to the legal practice of hunting. The Factor welcomed Rob Sexton of the US Sportsmen's Alliance to explain the distinction: "There's a world of difference. I can't imagine a more ridiculous comparison. It's like comparing a baseball player to someone who beats someone to death with a baseball bat." The Factor pointed out "The PETA people say you are barbaric Mr. Sexton. That you go out and shoot Bambi." Sexton scoffed at this: "Let's face it; PETA says a lot of ridiculous stuff. They compared the slaughter of chickens to the Holocaust one time."

Like I said, I didnt see the show, but based on that one snippet of the show he seemed to be fairly lucid and made a good point.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

He was fairly lucid and didn't make his point. I sent O'Reilly an email, 

"Dear Bill,

It’s obvious you are not too familiar with the outdoors, but I appreciated your giving the gentleman from the Sportsman’s Alliance the opportunity to defend hunting, although he didn’t do a very good job of it. Many hunters might actually go outdoors and play paintball with their kids, or they might take their kids hunting, and really teach them something about nature.

Hunting is a natural environment. There are all types of hunting, Bill, as you addressed. I am a bow hunter and old style muzzleloader hunter myself and each style or method that is chosen by the hunter has its challenges when done ethically and in fair chase. I posted this on your tip line till I found you email address finally.

If two dogs meet up over at the junkyard and get into it and one dog dies that is a natural occurrence. 

If two dogs are brainwashed, exercised, body toned, and conditioned to kill and are introduced to each other in a pit, that is entirely another issue, and .... if you lose but live, normally you'd slink off to lick your wounds.... but now.... the Devil... he steps in and dips you in water... and oh... them +&- terminals.... they’re from 110 volts house current, causing poor fidos muscles to contract with horrifying result and stopping the heart after excruciating pain, delivered because it cost the Devil a few bucks. 

Hunting... is a prey animal being taken for food by a predator. This is universal, whether wolf, bear, lion, snake, or man. A prey animal is sought after in their environment, where their eyesight, ears, and sense of smell all conspire against the predator. The prey animal is not hunted in the house of the predator, and by that I mean hunters have to hunt. 

You played football; didn’t you enjoy the running, the banging, and the competition? There are all types of competition. Hunting is another form of competition, between man and nature, for most of us, that is. Hunting is an escape from the city. Hunting to some is a return to their roots; to others it’s less basic. It’s rediscovery. It’s wholesome. Many are uncomfortable with the killing. The brainwashing of our children… and Bill O’Reilly (Bambi) assign cuteness to baby animals. Hunters do too, but realize the difference. Most hunters aren’t into hunting for the killing, but for the connection, something many and possibly you might not readily understand, but for a carnivore, or vegetarian, as one life is given to sustain another, there is a reverence in that.

If you’d like to debate hunting in America with us and PETA, Bill, send me a ticket, I’ll be there.

Much Aloha,

Tom Lodge
Hawaii Hunting Association"


----------



## BigBirdVA (Nov 5, 2002)

I think it just shows how worthless the press is by running to peta on the Vick deal for support or actually their condemnation of Vick and/or dog fighting. Just a few months ago the press was after peta for killing dogs and cats in NC and dumping the bodies. How quick they change. Guess sticking to your guns doesn't sell papers or TV commercials.

I didn't see the show but maybe we should have had Ted on there to set them straight.


----------



## Redmoon (Mar 18, 2007)

Guys, O'Reily threw us a bone... Think about it. Peta wasn't actually on the show, He just handed over a stupid peta accusation so this guy can shoot it down and knock it out of the ball park for us. O'reily figured out he was missing the point and rephrased it to give him another opportunity. Does dog fighting have anything to do with Hunters? Ofcourse not, but O'Reily likes to "stand for whats right" and hunting is a noble sport. He took the opportunity to promote something that promotes good morals.

Just my take.


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

Ok, i recorded the show on my DVR so Im going to quote it to you so that most people know what was said and the main points made. 

While he did make a few good points, those were definately the highlight of the show. Sexton mainly swung and missed several times while Bill would ask the question again and again, making Sexton look less and less likely he kne what he was talking about. 

I understand this should have been a no-brainer topic, hunting vs. dog fighting, but seems to me like sexton dropped the ball a little. 

The show started the topic on hunting after showing a clip of New York Knick Basketball Player Stephan Mulberry saying "I think its tough. I think you know. I mean we dont say anything, we dont say anything about people who shoot deers and who shoot other animals. And I mean, from what I hear, dog fighting is a sport." 

why the hell would anybody even consider this a quote from a credible source. if he is going to use generalizations then i will too. A dumb jock basketball player who probably didnt even write on paper for himself in college, is quoted. What BS

here is what gets me. 
Bill asks for Sexton to explain why "if your shooting and killing animals, why is that conservation?" 

to which sexton says "You need to go back to the history of conservation itself. At the turn of the century, in the late 1800's. It was hunters who realized that there were not very many places where wildlife accured anymore. And there were not very many places to go. And so they founded a system." 

To which Bill interupts saying "Teddy Rosevelt, he was the guy that lead that"

This was the defination of conservation. Are you kidding me? Thats what you got?  there is a little more to it than that. 

Next topic: Bill says this while trying to re-ask what Stephan Maulberry said "You have guys going into the woods with guns and bow and arrows or whatever they have, killing the animals, ok. They are doing it for sport. The dog fighting people are doing it for sport. What's the difference?"

Sexton replys, "the object of dog fighting is to watch two dogs try to kill each other while people gambl over the top of it. When my father and I go hunting together, its a family expirence. And in the end, we put food on the table. And there can't be much more wholesome things like that in America."

Bill, "Mr. Sexton, you hunt and what you kill, you eat?! So it's sustinance for you?"

Sexton, "well, its sustinance and no doubt its recreation. I mean to get to go out in the morning in the dark and find a place to hunt and be with your family & friends." Once again, interupted by Bill

Bill, "I got it but you could do paintballing too. You could do hiking. You could do birdwatching. Fishing. Look, the PETA people think your barbaric. Here is my point of view on it, The people who engage in dog fighting are sadistic, alright? They want to see dogs hurt each other and they want to see blood. And they bet on the sport and its barbaric. But the PETA people say your barbaric Mr Sexton. That your going in and shooting poor bambi. For fun. What do you say?"

Sexton, "Well, there is no doubt that we enjoy hunting. But in the end we get to put food on our tables, and enjoy ourselves and have some outdoor recreation with our family. And I think that americans can do a whole lot more of that. They would be a lot healthier than siting in front of our computer screens. And lets face it, PETA says a lot of rediculous stuff. They compaired the slaughter of chickens to the holocuast one time. So, if we're going to hold me up to PETA, I think we are in pretty good standing where we are defending ourselves against PETA." 

End of segment. So there you have it. The words right from their mouths. Now, I believe that Sexton tried. I believe he may have been sucessful in the attempt to seperate dog fighting and hunting, though his explinations were well below par, IMHO


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

Hi Adams.... I agree with you. I think that folks should be emailing [email protected] and expressing thanks for the segment, but that hunting is being outdoors, like fishing, or gardening, or searching for wildfruits... you could call it recreation, but these animals were put on earth to be eaten. Hunting is harvesting. Its also conservation. 1 its the dollars. 2. its the carrying capacity. 3. its reducing excess numbers that wind up on our roads causing millions of dollars of damage every year, but unlike professional shooters that slaughter and leave the animal where it drops, hunters eat what they shoot. Others make shoes, shirts, glue, backing, what have you from the animal as well, basic stuff... others like me... just like to re-connect with the sunshine, the wind, running waters, ocean, and animals... 

Aloha.... :beer:  :darkbeer:


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Here is what I wrote in another forum.

In the wake of the Michael Vick dogfighting issue some have attempted to create a corrolation between dogfighting and hunting.

This is not surprising in that current hsus president and animal rights advocate Wayne Pacelle was once quoted ... “Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting.” — Bozeman (MT) Daily Chronicle, Oct 1991

If there is anything shared between hunting and dogfighting it is the fact that A) Both involve animals, and B) Animal rights groups such as the Humane Society of the United States despise both activities.

Aside from those generic associations however there is NO legitimate validity in any comparason.

Now I know that the animal rights movement will try to claim that in both venues, animals needlessly suffer, but ...

As a bowhunter my goal is to kill the animal. Not to induce suffering for some type of sadistic orgasmic pleasure. That is why I practice my shooting skills. That is why I study a deer's anatomy and learn when to shoot and when not to shoot. That is why when I draw back my bow and take a shot at a deer that I have a razor sharp broadhead attached to my arrow, my bow is in top notch working condition, and my aim is to have the arrow penetrate the deer's vital organs ( heart, lungs ) in such a way that the animal expires quickly.

I also know that some will likely attempt to counter my previous paragraph with a claim that not all animals shot by hunters, especially bowhunters die quickly. Some are wounded and suffer. To which I shall respond with yes there is some truth to that statement but again the hunter, by working to improve his skills and using top notch equipment, seeks to reduce such wounding. Also it should be mentioned that nature itself is far more abhorrent than any claim of cruelty made by those opposed to hunting. Unlike in the cartoon world, in real life the wild bear does not call upon the other woodland creatures to help an injured deer and the animals don't gather around the campfire on Saturday night toasting marshmallows and singing songs. Starvation, disease, and merciless predation are all part of everyday life in the natural world where the taking of an animal's life by a hunter's arrow or bullet is a lot more "humane" than the fate which most animals will succumb to.

When a hunter kills an animal, yes he or she is taking a life. However the benefits of the hunter's actions far outweigh any emotional outcry which those opposed to hunting may cite.

Among such benefits are that the deer I shoot provides an excellent source of organic chemical free food rich in protein, and for those hunters who may not be interested in consuming what they kill the overwhelming majority of states have programs where the meat from game shot by hunters can be donated to help feed the needy. In fact millions of families benefit annually from such contributions from hunters.

The hunter also plays a vital role, both directly and indirectly, in wildlife management and conservation. The annual removal of animals by hunters, such as deer, helps towards ensuring a well balanced and healthy ecosystem by reducing the potential for harm to the environment which can often occur if deer numbers are not kept in check. The license fees paid by hunters, excise taxes on sporting equipment per the Pittman Robertson act of1937 , "duck" stamps, personal contributions, etc., annually provides over $1.7 billion dollars in wildlife conservation funding. Far more than all other sources combined, and during the past 100 or so years hunters have played a pivital role in the recovery of numerous species which were once threatened as well as preserving millions of acres of habitat for wildlife to thrive, for those who enjoy observing wildlife to visit, and to help educate the public of the vital importance of wildlife conservation.

Comparing hunting to dogfighting however is ludicrous.

It would be like trying to compare the Wall St. Journal to the National Enquirer, or trying to compare the culinary abilities of a teenager flipping burgers at McDonalds to the culinary abilities of celebrity chefs such as "Emeril" or Wolfgang Puck.

If fact the only two reasons I can see that there is even any attempt being made to create such a corrolation are the A) The animal rights movement, especially the Humane Society of the United States, who by the way are not your local animal shelter but rather an extreme political organization, often likes to rely on impressionism rather than pertinent facts to garner public support for their agenda. Knowing that people usually have emotional attachments to their beloved canine companions and would no doubt cringe at something like dogfighting in conjunction with the fact that there are a large number of persons with little in depth knowledge of hunting, these groups seek to capitalize on such in an attempt to implant impressions in people's minds as to how they would like to see hunting perceived versus what hunting is really all about., and B) That with a lack of such pertinent knowledge of hunting outside the sporting community, a scenereo exists where some, such as in the case of one Stephan Marbury, will attempt to make comparasons without one having so much as a clue as to what they are talking about.

In closing if there is one philosophical difference to point out between the hunting community and those who take exception to us, it is the fact that we do not condone criminal actions of our peers as the animal right movement who opposes us does.


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

uh,.......yeah, what he said. :wink:

sorry, lots to take in and read there. good stuff though. thanks for the contribution


----------



## BigBirdVA (Nov 5, 2002)

Nice work Tim4Trout! :darkbeer:


----------



## txcookie (Feb 17, 2007)

Bill can rip people to shreds! He was very easy on this guy and gave him every chance to make his point! He kept him on track with his interuptions. At first I was POED at Bill even though I am a huge fan and watch every night. Now I am upset at our guy. This is what happens when you put up people who dont know how to argue debate or represent. Bet you TED Bashers would have prefered Uncle Ted up there. I know I would have!

People this stuff is spreading every major news network has said somthing aout it and its been all over ESPN. Someone need to rig the Batman becon for Uncle TED and shine that sucker at the biggest cloud they can!


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

I've been up against PETA before. They don't understands facts either.

My choice in life is not shared by PETA.. and so that really is the end of the discussion. They believe in veganism, vegetarianism and anything but meat. Well most of them, not all.

However, I am not letting them coopt my choices in life. I am a omnivore. I eat meat. Meat is harvested, killed, processed, whatever you want you call it. Animals in the wild are hunted by others, and animals from the Aye-Aye's to the wolverine, hunt. Man is in there too. Real men are omnivores, some possibly just carnivores, but they is all vor eating...

PETA has a flaw when it comes to hunting, as do any who assign human characteristics to animals. Anyone who can with a straight face accuse a chicken of intelligence, hasn't quite made it past an intelligence Quotient of 2 digits, yet PETA and many who listen to them aren't thinking about the propaganda they espouse.

Hunting our way, is HUMANE when it comes to killing. Man is an efficient killer. PETA should be applauding our methods of killing versus that of the wolf, or the bear, or the coyote, and once in a while, the great cats. PETA separates us from nature. That is the flaw of their arguments. Man's basic intstincts are still intact and I choose to not have my psyche modified by PETA. They can choose for themselves whether to hunt or to not hunt. They can choose for themselves to be an accomplice to the killing or not. When I have blood on my hands, I've taken part in a natural cycle of life. There is a certain reverence in that to me.

Their arguments are that man is not entitled to killing and that we are the caretakers of the planet. To some small degree their probably right that we are caretakers of the planet, and when it comes to animals, really it is the likes of Safari Club International, Hunters all across America and the thousands upon thousands of shooters and target archers that also pour millions into the PR funds (89% I was told comes from them) are who are preserving the land, along with with huge organizations like the RMEF, Ducks Unlimited etc. We preserve the habitat better than anyone.

They argue that we only preserve the habitat in order to kill the animals. Wrong, we preserve the habitat so that the animals can have a quality of life. Hunters are a part of that lifestyle for an animal. They are prey animals. That means their role in life is to be eaten. Hunters also participate in the management of these lands and the carrying capacities that each part has. PETA doesn't like the killing. I don't revel in it either, but it is part of hunting.

When you run into PETA, tell them to get back to their chickens. We give animals free space to live, breed, and participate in life as they have since the beginning of time, without chemicals and contraceptives that PETA thinks is the answer to overcrowding... Hunters are the epitome of practical biology.

PETA is an extremist organization that will resort to terrorist tactics to accomplish their goals. The problem with hunters is that we are sane law abiding citizens that hunt individually and don't band together in huge groups to prove our point, or to demand our way of life. We are courteous and respectful. But... we can evolve... 

Aloha...  :beer:


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

txcookie said:


> Someone need to rig the Batman becon for Uncle TED and shine that sucker at the biggest cloud they can!


Ted Nugent is the wrong guy to put up against PETA or any other organization related to animal rights in MY OPINION. Ted doesn't have the "class" necessary to promote good biology lessons, Wayne LaPierre aint either. Both of these guys have gotten into a rut, just like Jeraldo has with his illegal immigrant positions. We don't need parrots, but someone who can carefully craft the arguments.

When it comes to gun control, on the other hand, Ted is a great advocate, and does a good job, again in my OPINION.

People have been brainwashed by Disney about animals for 50 years or more. Bambi.. was a term used by O'Reilly even last night. Pretty pervasive. You have to acknowledge that then show the difference. Teds Wife, maybe, might be a better spokesperson for hunting compared to the animal rights activist, but I don't know if she does that sort of stuff.

I've been up with PETA before... and they usually try to get you into a screaming match with them.. then they win. You have to shut them up, and present your facts. Refuting PETA is really quite easy to do, but you have to find proper ways to get over the blood.

Aloha...  :darkbeer:


----------



## Yellowfin (Mar 6, 2007)

Maybe someone paid O'Reilley off to take a dive on this one?


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

*Tim*

Nice job!

The only thing I would of added was to have Bill ask PETA how much money they spend anually that directly goes into wildlife conservation.

I'm sure it is pretty close to ZERO.


----------



## txcookie (Feb 17, 2007)

hey he posted a good email tonight looked like somthing that one of us would have said!


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Mike Ryan said:


> Nice job!
> 
> The only thing I would of added was to have Bill ask PETA how much money they spend anually that directly goes into wildlife conservation.
> 
> I'm sure it is pretty close to ZERO.


Actually I missed all but the last minute or so of the conversation between Bill and Ron Sexton, thus what I wrote was somewhat from a blind perspective, and perhaps also somewhat generic in nature.


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

Tim4Trout said:


> Actually I missed all but the last minute or so of the conversation between Bill and Ron Sexton, thus what I wrote was somewhat from a blind perspective, and perhaps also somewhat generic in nature.


dont know if you saw it or not tim, but just so you know. i typed out the word for word conversation between the two. its written in post #12. I recorded the show and played it back so i could post clearly what was said


----------



## MNmike (Dec 27, 2003)

*Don't get me wrong*



Tim4Trout said:


> Actually I missed all but the last minute or so of the conversation between Bill and Ron Sexton, thus what I wrote was somewhat from a blind perspective, and perhaps also somewhat generic in nature.


I think you did a great job.

I wish the factor interview was better represented.

I always wish the dollars and who really contribules to conservation surfaced more often during these debates. 

PETA and HSUS officials wouldn't have a thing to say.

Without the outdoorsmen, hunting and fishing, where would the money and the manpower come from?

Those ARA can't truthfully answer that.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

adamsvenom said:


> dont know if you saw it or not tim, but just so you know. i typed out the word for word conversation between the two. its written in post #12. I recorded the show and played it back so i could post clearly what was said


I've responded to some of what was posted in post #12, but remember I am able to take my time and carefully select my response versus trying to answer on the spot. ( I do not know if Mr. Sexton was pre briefed or not on what questions he was going to be asked. )



> Bill asks for Sexton to explain why "if your shooting and killing animals, why is that conservation?"


The shooting and killing of animals is a part of hunting, but far from the whole aspect. When we take an animal it is be because there are enough available animals to warrant the removal of some (which is why hunting is usually regulated with "bag limits") without adversely affecting their population. In this case hunting can serves as a preemptive measure by helping to prevent overpopulation. When animal numbers exceed their carrying capacity, their removal by hunters helps to stabilize populations. When animal such as deer become overpopulated, they wreck havoc with their environment. When their browsing (feeding) exceeds the rate to which their food supply can not adequately replenish itself, the ecosystem suffers affecting not only the deer, but other wildlife as well. ( Note -- I've leaving out the financial contributions of hunters as it pertains to conservation at this time. )



> Bill says this while trying to re-ask what Stephan Maulberry said "You have guys going into the woods with guns and bow and arrows or whatever they have, killing the animals, ok. They are doing it for sport. The dog fighting people are doing it for sport. What's the difference?"


When we consider hunting as a sport, we're not making a comparison to spectator sports like football or baseball, but rather it serves as terminology to differentiates as to how we take the animal. Perhaps a comparison of a fishing trawler with a net miles long to someone with a fishing rod might serve as an analogy. By imposing restrictions on when and how we pursue game, and limiting the number we can take, we give the animals a "sporting" chance, a chance to elude the hunter versus utilizing available means that would indeed give the animal no chance.

( Note -- I am working on "the difference" a bit more for a subsequent post.) 




> Bill, "I got it but you could do paintballing too. You could do hiking. You could do birdwatching. Fishing. Look, the PETA people think your barbaric. Here is my point of view on it, The people who engage in dog fighting are sadistic, alright? They want to see dogs hurt each other and they want to see blood. And they bet on the sport and its barbaric. But the PETA people say your barbaric Mr Sexton. That your going in and shooting poor bambi. For fun. What do you say?"


First of all it is easy to question PeTA's credibility. Their president Ingrid Newkirk refers to Rodney Coronado a convicted arsonist who goes to colleges and demonstrates how to construct incendiary devices as a "fine young man". Their vegan coordinator Bruce Friedrich openly advocates "blowing up stuff in the name of animal liberation", and PeTA also has gone as far as labeling the fund raising practice of sectioning off a field and having people wager on which "square" a cow will do its thing as cruel and inhumane. 

As far as shooting poor Bambi, Bambi is a cartoon character, not a real deer. Real deer are not poor, which I will assume the context is meant to mean lacking of sorts and not to do with material wealth. Contrary to belief it is usually the deer, not the hunter who often has the advantage. Their acute eyesight designed to see in diminished light and detect movement as subtle as a blink at fifty yards. Their acute hearing with oversize ears that can turn to help pinpoint the source of a sound and differentiate between natural sounds and noises foreign to their environment. Their olfactory senses akin to a bloodhound which can detect the presence of potential predation hundreds of yards away long before a predator knows of their presence. Their natural gray brown coloring which blends in with autumn leaves and their environment especially at dusk and dawn. Their overall natural sense of awareness. All of these play a pivotal role in a deer's defensive warning system which allows the species to avoid predation from both man and natural predators. If poor is meant to suggest any sort of helplessness, deer are far from helpless.

As for paintball. hiking, and birdwatching, these activities currently do not generate funds for wildlife conservation and the preservation of habitat as hunting does. Additionally paintball and hiking are activities of physical motion. Deer hunting, which I will focus on here, involves subtle and covert movement at best. The hiker doesn't sit virtually motionless and silent for hours attempting to pay attention and identify every sound in the woods a potential deer or attempt to differentiate between a deer's antlers and branches from a fallen tree as the sun moves and lighting changes how objects in the woods appear.

Finally as far as shooting Bambi "for fun" goes, Yes I enjoy hunting. For me the taking of an animal (deer), and subsequent celebration however means accomplishment. It means that I have honed my hunting skills to a point where I have succeeded in outwitting one of nature's most wary of creatures. Ever wonder why so many hunters target large mature bucks with massive antlers? It is because that deer usually represents an animal who is well honed, not only with natural warning detection, but also with years of experience at avoiding predation and is often more elusive and challenging to hunt.


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

WOW, too bad Mr Sexton couldnt think of just one of those many wonderful things to say. but hey, i guess 'uh, conservation is having a place to shoot animals' and 'cause its just good old family fun and i put food on my table' will just have to do

I understand being 'put on the spot' if you can say that when you know your going to be interviewed about this topic.........but seriously. the only thing i can hope to say is true about this is just that Mr Sexton was just cut off too many times by Bill and that they didnt have much time to discuss things in detail. 

great job Tim.


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

*Peta*

I'm curious.... 

How many of you here had the grand opportunity to have a minute with these folks... 

Aloha...


----------



## Redmoon (Mar 18, 2007)

*Be Prepared*

This thread is so important because it shows a glaring weaknesses in the hunting community. 

Peta and HSUS are highly organized and most importantly they prepared. They are putting us in defense and the hunting community is in a reactive mode rather than offensive. The organizations that we pay money to need to work harder to attack and discredit PETA and HSUS. How many times have we seen news about Peta breaking into and destroying property to release animals in to the wild, employing terrorist tactics that they don't condemn?

Thank god a Peta person wasn't on that show because they would have ripped sextant to shreds. I"m sure he's a good man and passionate about what he does, but Peta and HSUS have dedicated public speakers. Why doesn't Sportsman's alliance? In the new world those who take control of the media take control period. I belong to Sportman's Alliance and yes its a bash, it's also more imporantly constructive criticism. Put someone who can communicate in that seat even if it's not the ceo.

I believe Sextant messed up because he was not prepared to answer questions. He tried to wing it, and he choked. The lesson here is memorize some articulate responses if we have to, to help people that don't know or understand, to understand. 

If we educate our fellow hunters with come backs to typical accusations or misconceptions, then they'll have more confidence to take on an anti who is mouthing off in a public place.. Imagine how many people you can turn around if you have a crowd of undecideds and you make the anti look like a kook... Just by virtue of you reading this, I know you have responses to defend your rights. I'm talking about the guy who doesn't get this type of opportunity to really talk amongst allies about how to counter these types of attacks. Bring this up next time you're with a group of hunters to measure responses and comebacks and take the opportunity to educate.

If you think about it, Some people die for freedoms and rights that we have in this country which include hunting and it's heritage. The LEAST we can do is follow through to keep this freedom for ourselves and for our kids and grandkids.

So I'll walk the talk by listing some positive things to bring up while under attack.

Pros to hunting:

To teach someone to hunt is to teach:
1) Responsibility - required to handle firearms
2) Perseverance - required for steady aim
3) Confidence - to take the shot.
4) Patience - required to take the shot when the time is right.
5) Survival skills - that can save his life or someone else's
6) Appreciation - for the effort it takes to put meat on the table when you can't buy it at the store
7) Biology - when demonstrating where the vitals are for a humane kill
8) Firearm skills - that again my save that person's life or others 
9) Teamwork - in dragging out that deer or workdays at hunting camp.
10) Good WOrk ethic - putting in hours of work of scouting, walking, farming to harvest that deer.
11) Sharing - Stories and knowledge and whatever is there that you want to share.
12) Respect - for nature, firearms, and your teacher
13) Botany - In learning about deer habitat
14) Physical Fitness - required in hunting in general
15) Family Values - Spending time with your kid or parents making memories.

16) Hunters are conservationist simply by being hunters because if we don't conserve the land, then our quary will disapear.
17) How is killing deer conservation? Deer poplulations have exploded inspite of an increased number of hunters and their harvests. Why? Because all of the work and money that hunters put in to their land and public land to keep it not only pristine, but in many cases more bountifull as to give deer plenty of shelter and food helping them survive. Killing a deer and putting meat on the table is our reward. The hunting community is directly responsible for the abundance of wildlife in our country not Peta or HSUS. Peta and HSUS are responsible however for acts of terrorism and trying to take a way a legal sport since the inception of our country to promote positive values. 
18) Hunting has been proven to reduce the exposure to Lyme disease.
19) Hunting has been proven to save lives by reducing deer/vehicle collisions
20) Hunters donate thousands of pounds of the most expensive meat in the world to feed our hungry.


Now lets talk about what's not happening while you're hunting:

21) It's highly probable that they are not smoking meth, crack or heroine because it's cheap, easy, and have nothing productive to do with their time.
22) It's highly probably that they are not staying home learning its ok to be fat and lazy playing video games.
23) It's highly probable that you're not stressed out watching the squirls play.

I'm sure we can come up with more...

Since hunting vs dog fighting is the flavor of the day,...:

Dogs are bred solely to fight or die so that people can gamble. There is absolutely nothing positive that comes from dog fighting. 

So these are some things to defend hunting, but take a page from the peta book. Go on offense and find out facts about PETA, HSUS, and ANTIs, to attack them and put them on defense. There are several great threads on here that have information about what PETA and HSUS really do. 

Please take this list or one like it and please email it to your buddies so that next time some indignant Peta puke pipes up about why their right is more important then yours, in public or in private, then they'll recieve a nice warm bowl of STFU.

Don't pull a Sextant.

Thanks for your time and I approve this message.

Redmoon for President 2008...


----------



## adamsvenom (Feb 9, 2007)

well, that was quite a nice little speach. not sure if your going to get elected though, :wink:

thanks for the imput and i completely agree with you on the fact that we need to be more on the offensive rather than trying to deflect the punches thrown. and its too bad instead of having an actual boxer in the fight on our side, seems like we keep getting punching bags


----------



## Yellowfin (Mar 6, 2007)

Again I say check OReilley and Sextant's bank accounts. Someone paid them off to not put up a fight, which as Redmoon clearly articulates could have sent the ARA's back to the stone age. There seems no reason otherwise as to why they didn't. 

Yes I am serious. This stinks.


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

Redmoon said:


> This thread is so important because it shows a glaring weaknesses in the hunting community.



Ted Nugent ( whether you love him or hate him aside ) has often said the following about hunting --always promote, never defend-- . While I do not agree with his "never" 
defend as I believe there are times when such is necessary, he is right in the fact that as hunters we do far too little to promote ourselves. 

How can we have the public view us any different than they already do ? ... if all they may perceive about hunting is that hunters go into the woods and shoot animals. Case in point -- Bill O'Reilly "If your shooting and killing animals, why is that conservation?" 

---

One major problem we face as hunters though is that IMO within our ranks there are very few who work constantly at keeping the enemy ( hsus, sometimes peta, etc. ) at bay. 

Some will become activists when the cause affects them, but for the most part once the issue passes they go back to simply being hunters, and that is where we are truly at a disadvantage. 

Case in point. After Michigan lost dove hunting to the anti's in 2006, there were several discussions at the Michigan Sportsman Forums as to what went wrong. While several good reasons were made, the bottom line, at least as I see it, as to why we failed is a follows. 

Experience vs Inexperience. 

When they hsus pushed the 2006 Michigan dove referendum it was the 21st time since1990 that they had pushed a referendum against sporting interests. ( Not to mention referendums against other non hunting interests ) 

For the sportsmen of Michigan however , it was only the second referendum they have had to deal with directly. The other being one to ban bear hunting methods back in 1996. Add the fact that hunters often stay within the limitations of their specific interests and you essentially ended up having a well experienced group pitted against those doing battle for the first time with little or no previous experience in such matters. 

( BTW -- The next "hunting" referendum they likely are going after will be "high fence" in North Dakota. They are already preparing to gather petitions as I write this. _Now I know there are hunters out there opposed to high fence_, but the type of venue is not the issue here. The issue is this. The enemy is already making preparations for a vote that if it materializes would not come for over 14 months. Are those who would be affected doing anything right now ? Are the high fence operators in ND preparing themselves ? Have any of them worked on previous referendums ( High Fence in Montana in 2000 ? or other recent anti hunting referendums ? ) Even more important is will those who fought to protect dove hunting in Michigan, bear hunting in Maine and Alaska, trapping in Washington, etc. and who would have at least some experience going to help them ?, or as it is so often the case will it be another situation of "Since it doesn't affect me what do I care?" )

---

While I certainly have my critics, often I receive positive comments from my postings and I do thank those who make such comments. However I didn't just suddenly wave a magic wand and become able to post informative and inspirational writings. I've been fighting the hsus for over 6 years here in cyberspace and elsewhere even before that. In other words I am able to write what I do simply from experience. 

All of what I have penned above are reasons why some of us are constantly calling on our fellow sportsmen to join us when it comes to activism. We know it won't be easy for some, especially in the beginning. But as you gain experience, you can provide a powerful tool in our fight to protect our sporting interests against a wealthy, powerful, and relentlessly determined enemy.


----------



## Redmoon (Mar 18, 2007)

Tim4Trout said:


> All of what I have penned above are reasons why some of us are constantly calling on our fellow sportsmen to join us when it comes to activism. We know it won't be easy for some, especially in the beginning. But as you gain experience, you can provide a powerful tool in our fight to protect our sporting interests against a wealthy, powerful, and relentlessly determined enemy.


Good point. What are some ways effective ways that out of staters can help in an attack like you described in ND?

One very smart thing that Sportsmans Alliance is doing is now focussing on grassroots efforts by notifying people who volunteer about attacks by ARA groups to show up to the fight and voice the opinion of the sportsman. We can sign up for this on their website.

I'm fired up...


----------



## rattus58 (Jul 9, 2007)

*Redmoon is correct about preparation*

My 5000 word response got lost... so I'll reduce it to about 5 sentences...

Hunters need to be prepared, understand what we have done, are doing and expect to do in the future.

You have to establish that PETA AND HSUS are agenda driven, political, if you will. Biology is what should be driving game management, and hunters are a major component in that management strategy.

Hunters provide HUMANE solutions to game management. PETA and HSUS's solutions are to let nature run its course. This is anything but HUMANE. This solution by PETA HSUS will be detrimental to the recovery of predators like the wolf, the grizzly bear, and the mountain lion over the long run. Habitat will deteriorate, possibly forever, since habitat is in such short supply in the first place. animals that are overgrazing will have no place to move to. On this note, habitat for an elk, might provide carrying capacity for 100 field mice, two or three rabbits, one or two foxes or coyotes, etc... if animals are left to their own resources, overgrazing etc could destroy not only one species habitat, but the habitat for many more. Hunting prevents this.

PETA/HSUS are dishonest in their intentions, are radical organizations, and promote terrorism with their radical agenda's and activities of property destruction and assaults upon people. You need to get up to speed with PETA/HSUS. They want the total ban upon the use of animals. No chicken wings, no leather, and of course no hunting. They are getting smarter, and talk about sparing animals unnecessary suffering. Right on. Thats why Bessie gets a 22 right in the brain. Hunting is the most HUMANE method of of any predator.

I agree with you Mr. Redmoon to get involved. Get educated, and get "Physically" involved. Get your bodies to the courts when needed, to rally's when needed, and do not get physical with PETA/HSUS.. let them get hysterical with your confrontation. They will do it.. I promise...  :grin:

Aloha...  :beer:


----------



## steadyeddie (Apr 27, 2004)

*Thanks*



txcookie said:


> hey he posted a good email tonight looked like somthing that one of us would have said!


Is there any good public places to bow hunt in Iowa prefer southern part. :wink:


----------

