# Sticky  Supporters of Antis



## bacs22

*Right from the HSUS Website*

Many celebrities have helped The HSUS and our efforts to protect animals. And all of them have at least two traits in common: they're animal friendly and willing to demonstrate their support for The HSUS. 
Thanks to every one!

Animal Friendly Celebrities:

Maria Conchita Alonso
Bea Arthur (Halt Hog Factories)
Ed Asner (Providing for Your Pet's Future)
Alec Baldwin (Choosing A Humane Diet, Halt Hog Factories)
Ed Begley, Jr. (Animals In Research, Halt Hog Factories)
Shari Belafonte (Fur Free Century)
Jessica Biel (First Strike)
Elayne Boosler (First Strike, Fur Free Century)
Berk Breathed (Fur Free Holidays, Karakul Lamb)
Ron Burns (Artist in Residence)
Dixie Carter (Fur Free Century)
Mary Chapin Carpenter (Fur Free Century)
James Cromwell (Halt Hog Factories)
Jenna Elfman (Fur Free Holidays, Pets For Life)
Mike Farrell (Animals In Research, Karakul Lamb)
David Foley (Fur Free Holidays)
Sara Gilbert (Animals In Research)
Bill Goldberg (Animal Fighting, Farm Animals, First Strike)
Whoopi Goldberg (First Strike)
Cathy Guisewite (Karakul Lamb)
Steve Guttenberg (First Strike)
Anne Heche (Fur Free Holidays)
Tippi Hedren (First Strike, Fur Free Century, Halt Hog Factories, Karakul Lamb)
Anjelica Huston (narrated public service announcement)
Kevin James (Fur Free Holidays)
Diane Keaton (Fur Free Holidays)
Vicki Lewis (Fur Free Holidays)
Ali MacGraw (Equine Issues, First Strike, Karakul Lamb)
Bill Maher (First Strike, Fur Free Holidays, Spay/Neuter)
Dave Matthews (First Strike, Fur Free Holidays, Halt Hog Factories)
Peter and Mary Max (Halt Hog Factories)
Rue McClanahan (Animals In Research, Equine Issues, First Strike)
Patrick McDonnell (Fur Free Century, National Animal Shelter Appreciation Week)
Mandy Moore (First Strike)
Mary Tyler Moore (Animals In Research, Equine Issues, First Strike, Karakul Lamb)
Frankie Muniz (First Strike)
Kevin Nealon (Animals In Research, Fur Free Century)
Alexandra Paul (Halt Hog Factories, Karakul Lamb)
Victoria Principal (Animals In Research)
Leah Remini (Fur Free Holidays)
Christina Ricci (First Strike)
Ally Sheedy (Halt Hog Factories)
Alicia Silverstone (Fur Free Holidays)
Britney Spears (Fur Free Century, First Strike)
Jerry Stiller (Fur Free Holidays)
Maura Tierney (Fur Free Holidays)
Joan Van Ark (Fur Free Century)
Betty White (Fur Free Holidays, First Strike)
Montel Williams (Disaster, First Strike, Safe Cats)
Robin Williams (Tuna/Dolphin)


----------



## Tim4Trout

Here is a link from Brian Carnel's site listing animal rights supporters ( including several celebraties )

http://www.animalrights.net/archives/related_topics/index.html#people-ar


----------



## Jerry/NJ

See if your favorite movie star is trying to deny you your right to hunt.

http://www.activistcash.com/index_celebrities.cfm


----------



## T-Panic

You can also check the ussportsmen.org they have a pretty good list infact
i was jst looking at it yesterday it will scare you.


----------



## NJarcher

List from ussportsmens.org:
http://www.wlfa.org/interactive/features/Read.cfm?ID=953


----------



## bigbulls

It's not hunting related but *Pizza Hut* does not support a persons right to carry a concealed firearm while delivering pizzas to strangers houses.


----------



## bushbuck

Roxanne Quimby- COO of Burts Bees, based in Durham NC. She is attempting to develop a 3.2 million acre National park in Maine. The proposed would be larger than Yellowstone and Yosemite combined> Yes NO HUNTING and she wants to make it a national park so You pay to maintain it. When the Nature Conservancy bought 185,000 acres in Maine she donated 2 million dollars. She just bought 24,083 thousand acres for 12 million and kicked all the hunters off, as well as the snowmobile trails closed. She has purchased another 15,921 acres at 7.1 million and yes its all now closed to hunters.. 
How much of this elite stuff is going on in Your area? They buy the land, turn it over to the goverment so they can maintain it and avoid future taxes, with the stipulation that there will be no hunting..


----------



## Dusty Britches

bushbuck said:


> Roxanne Quimby- COO of Burts Bees, based in Durham NC. She is attempting to develop a 3.2 million acre National park in Maine. The proposed would be larger than Yellowstone and Yosemite combined> Yes NO HUNTING and she wants to make it a national park so You pay to maintain it. When the Nature Conservancy bought 185,000 acres in Maine she donated 2 million dollars. She just bought 24,083 thousand acres for 12 million and kicked all the hunters off, as well as the snowmobile trails closed. She has purchased another 15,921 acres at 7.1 million and yes its all now closed to hunters..
> How much of this elite stuff is going on in Your area? They buy the land, turn it over to the goverment so they can maintain it and avoid future taxes, with the stipulation that there will be no hunting..


Holy Cow!! I need to up my donations to the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation!


----------



## Tim4Trout

This Quimby character, a wealthy anti hunting person, who bushbuck refers to above also contributed ( though a rather small amount ) to those pushing the Maine anti bear hunting referendum last year.

http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/Public/report_selection.asp?Type=PAC&ReportID=31158&Name=Maine%20Citizen's%20for%20Fair%20Bear%20Hunting&Report=42-day%20Post-General&YEAR=2004&LIMIT=&ID=1389

Sorry - The above needs copy and paste.

http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/CFReports/PAC/CFReports/PAC_SchedAReports/31158.htm


----------



## ridgerunner

Does PETA own Outback Steak house?


----------



## eric96

Well this is why we need to support more celeberties that are for hunting and the shooting sports people like Ted Nugent, Genna Davis, Jeff Foxworthy,and so on. If we do not get on the ball and try to support our own beloved sport we may lose it forever.


----------



## Thumper1

Have you caught the William Shatner's/Capt Kirk new Peta add on TV.

----------------

Just a heads up, it looks like Disney is looking to remake Bambi

Finally, Mel Gibson (search) the new Michael Eisner? A consortium of European investors is courting Mel to take over Disney.

"Gibson has the sensibilities Hollywood needs," according to a source close to the actor.

The people behind the push point to "The Passion" and say that's the kind of profitability they like. I like Bob Sommerby from dailyhowler.com's observation -- "that remake of Bambi is going to be brutal"


----------



## deer_hunt'n

What I dont get is why anyone cares what SOME celebrity thinks anyway!!!! :shade:

They are all nuts with way too much money.


----------



## doctariAFC

deer_hunt'n said:


> What I dont get is why anyone cares what SOME celebrity thinks anyway!!!! :shade:
> 
> They are all nuts with way too much money.


Everytime you plunk down money to see one of their movies, or buy one of their books, or watch their TV shows, you're putting money into their pockets which in part finds its way to these ARA groups. In other words, if you support the work of these wackos, you are in affect supporting PETA, HSUS, ASPCA, ALF, Fund for Animals,etc, etc, etc.


----------



## bow weevil

I am not going to post a bunch of links, but Americas sweetheart turned @@##$%# pamela anderson is a huge supporter of PETA. I didn't see her name on the list.


----------



## doctariAFC

bow weevil said:


> I am not going to post a bunch of links, but Americas sweetheart turned @@##$%# pamela anderson is a huge supporter of PETA. I didn't see her name on the list.


You are CORRECT! She is also a VEGAN, pushing the VEGAN "way of life"

Despite her looks, do not support this dame (beyond the free picture downloads )

Wacko of the highest order.


----------



## stoneywaters

I don't vote like a cecebrity or want to be like a celebrity. Everything I kill I eat and share with others including shelters. I contribute and support wildlife conservation and I obey all laws and take advantage of my rights as an American. I could be a celebrity if I wanted at act but I prefer to be myself and do all the things I enjoy. Hunting makes me proud. One more thing, I have a permit to carry a concealed firearm and so does my wife and 21 year old son. God bless America.


----------



## bow weevil

Another for the list, possibly. tell me what you think.

Pamela Anderson just had a charity "roast" on comedy central. All money raised went to the Petards. It looks to me like Comedy Central is now on the list of Peta Supporters, since they promoted, sponsored, and broadcast it in order to raise money for her "cause"


----------



## doctariAFC

bow weevil said:


> Another for the list, possibly. tell me what you think.
> 
> Pamela Anderson just had a charity "roast" on comedy central. All money raised went to the Petards. It looks to me like Comedy Central is now on the list of Peta Supporters, since they promoted, sponsored, and broadcast it in order to raise money for her "cause"


I would second that assessment. ADD Comedy Central to the list. You can only chock so much up to "being funny."


----------



## cath8r

I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but could someone explain to me if a celeb or anyone contributes money to 'anti-animal fighting' causes or 'anti-dolphin trapping' causes, what makes them so bad? I don't happen to agree with those practices at all. Yes, I whacked 3 deer this year with my bow and will fight to preserve hunting, fishing, trapping and the shooting sports till the day I die. I happen to support spay/neuter ideals. Does that make me part of the problem?


----------



## ftshooter

cath8r said:


> I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but could someone explain to me if a celeb or anyone contributes money to 'anti-animal fighting' causes or 'anti-dolphin trapping' causes, what makes them so bad? I don't happen to agree with those practices at all. Yes, I whacked 3 deer this year with my bow and will fight to preserve hunting, fishing, trapping and the shooting sports till the day I die. I happen to support spay/neuter ideals. Does that make me part of the problem?


 Well, No and yes to your Question ...no if they only help to spay/neuter pets ... That is one thing ..dolphin trapping.. Are they endangered ? I doubt that even happens much ..Or is it accidental by fish nets? I am not sure ..that stuff needs checked close ..as they say one thing and do another..or ..money may go in to one big pot .then it goes to all kinds of stuff ..like trying to stop bear hunts in NJ ..To banning trapping in NM ..They do this kind of under handed deals all the time.. I never give anti hunting celebs money ..as it may go to anti hunting causes or it will help to keep there face out there to spout off that junk .. I won't even watch their movies on TV.. as the more people watch the more they show it and they won't think airing their views hurt them.. They can have them. but, they should not try and influence people .. Just like politics ... If they wish to lose half their audience they should .. I just copy some thing before I give em any of my money for it ..Not that I am telling anyone else to do that ..


----------



## ftshooter

*Just wondering ..*

Is AOL on the list ..I have had people tell me they are antis ..And I sure thought so , as when I used them a while back ..they block gun sites etc..


----------



## Tim4Trout

cath8r said:


> I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but could someone explain to me if a celeb or anyone contributes money to 'anti-animal fighting' causes or 'anti-dolphin trapping' causes, what makes them so bad? I don't happen to agree with those practices at all. Yes, I whacked 3 deer this year with my bow and will fight to preserve hunting, fishing, trapping and the shooting sports till the day I die. I happen to support spay/neuter ideals. Does that make me part of the problem?


While they may be contributing to a cause in the belief of good faith, their donations may be going to factions that are anti hunting. How many people give to the hsus or peta believing that their money is going towards helping abandoned kittens and puppies when in reality it is being spent against sportsmen's interests?

On a side note, since you've mentioned the term -- 'anti-animal fighting' causes -- please take note that if factions like the hsus or peta lie or mislead the public about hunting , then consider that whatever they say about other activities involving animals should also be questioned in terms of its accuracy.


----------



## CWarmouth

cath8r said:


> I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but could someone explain to me if a celeb or anyone contributes money to 'anti-animal fighting' causes or 'anti-dolphin trapping' causes, what makes them so bad? I don't happen to agree with those practices at all. Yes, I whacked 3 deer this year with my bow and will fight to preserve hunting, fishing, trapping and the shooting sports till the day I die. I happen to support spay/neuter ideals. Does that make me part of the problem?


Go to www.animalliberationfront.com and spend a few hours reading their FAQs, credo, and forums. Then see if you feel the same way. Not only do they want to take away your right to whack a few deer, they would like to see YOU dead. It's not a game to them and they are, unfortunately, just as passionate about doing away with your hunting as you are about keeping it. I will not support any ARA supporters and appreciate these lists.


----------



## the natural

*petition*



Jerry/NJ said:


> See if your favorite movie star is trying to deny you your right to hunt.
> 
> http://www.activistcash.com/index_celebrities.cfm


hey jerry, should we sign the petition on the website or no?


----------



## Washi

ftshooter said:


> Is AOL on the list ..I have had people tell me they are antis ..And I sure thought so , as when I used them a while back ..they block gun sites etc..


I've pretty much quit using Google because they block anything firearm related.


----------



## the natural

bushbuck said:


> Roxanne Quimby- COO of Burts Bees, based in Durham NC. She is attempting to develop a 3.2 million acre National park in Maine. The proposed would be larger than Yellowstone and Yosemite combined> Yes NO HUNTING and she wants to make it a national park so You pay to maintain it. When the Nature Conservancy bought 185,000 acres in Maine she donated 2 million dollars. She just bought 24,083 thousand acres for 12 million and kicked all the hunters off, as well as the snowmobile trails closed. She has purchased another 15,921 acres at 7.1 million and yes its all now closed to hunters..
> How much of this elite stuff is going on in Your area? They buy the land, turn it over to the goverment so they can maintain it and avoid future taxes, with the stipulation that there will be no hunting..


i'm not trying to bash or cut down but with people who have money to buy land like this for the antis wouldnt it be smart or a good idea for our money makers(ranches, outfitters and hunting celebs) to get together and buy as much land as possible and keep open to hunting. i dont mean more ranches but just land like state or federal land, and get donations to keep it up or help pay for taxes and other expenses.
just my .02


----------



## CWarmouth

Yeah Natural, i agree. I have often thought about starting some type of non-profit where a big pool of people could go in together and buy tracts of land, then setting it up like a timeshare kind of deal. Then you could get government incentives etc to keep it preserved. i don't have the knowledge or experience to do anything like that, but I'd certainly put some $ in the pot. The nature conservency would be awesome if they didn't kick the hunters out. At least they keep the developers out.


----------



## coyotedube

*killentime*

Peta had better clean there own back yard. or has everyone gorgot about the thousounds of puppys they are killing a day. Wonder what they think is humain. I was confronted in the 70s in the great state of colorado by some ant eyes and they egged me for bow hunting. i see them like a poor slow **** hit on the road. they are slow


----------



## dchenbecker

*Animal Rights != Anti-hunter*

First, let me just say that I support the hunting/fishing/harvesting of animals as long as it's done ethically and responsibly. I'm not a hunter myself, but all of the hunters I've known (bow and rifle) have been strong advocates of outdoor preservation, including resource management and sustainable hunting. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.

That being said, I think you need to be careful when you start lumping together large groups of people and putting a single label on them. Just to bring up a couple of examples:

1. Dolphin/Tuna advocates. ftshooter, in response to your question, yes it does happen. My understanding, based on some limited research, is that schools of Tuna often swim under pods of Dolphins. The idea is that by setting the net around the dolphins, you will also get a school of Tuna. This practice is illegal in the US and the US actually embargoes imports of Tuna from countries that still allow it. Note that the prohibition is on the intentional catch of dolphins. Most fishing fleets for the US have observers onboard that make sure that this doesn't happen. From what I've read, most of the advocacy groups for Dolphin-Safe Tuna are trying to ensure that the embargoes stay up on countries that continue the practice, as well as education and legislation efforts in those countries to reduce the problem. If you really want to read up on it, here are a few pages with some background:

http://www.maninnature.com/Fisheries/Tuna/tuna1a.html
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/aidcp.htm
http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/envir_e/edis04_e.htm

2. Anti-Animal testing advocates. This is an area that has a broad range of groups advocating different things. Some groups advocate a strict ban on all animal testing, something that I think is completely unreasonable. Other groups are advocating limited bans, while still more groups are trying to fund research for replacements for animal testing. I have friends who do biomedical research and their ideal would be to have some sort of synthetic model for testing (computer or chemical), since that essentially eliminates the variations that you see in natural species and allows for much quicker and large-scale testing of drugs, products, etc. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet at that level, so animal testing must continue. There may be some correlation between people in the strict ban camp and anti-hunting rights, but I don't think you can automatically imply the link.

I just wanted to point out that it's really easy to get upset about an issue and just turn it into an us vs. them argument. Also, as was correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, some people may be donating to causes based on a single aspect of the cause. I don't know that this automatically means that the donor is anti-hunting. It may mean that the donor is ignorant of the full scope of the organization, but that just means the donor didn't do their homework. The only real way to tell would be if the donor actually made a statement one way or the other. Perhaps you should actually write some of these people and see what their stance really is? 

I think the key in this case is to not only discuss who may be supporting restricting hunting rights, but what you can do to ensure a future in which you're allowed to hunt. "The Natural"s idea of pooling money to purchase land so that you can set aside preserves sounds like a good idea. Another important step is to make sure you maintain a dialog with your elected representatives and local fish and wildlife agencies; you won't accomplish anything ranting about who wants to take away your rights on a bulletin board.

Good luck, and happy hunting

Derek


----------



## doctariAFC

dchenbecker said:


> First, let me just say that I support the hunting/fishing/harvesting of animals as long as it's done ethically and responsibly. I'm not a hunter myself, but all of the hunters I've known (bow and rifle) have been strong advocates of outdoor preservation, including resource management and sustainable hunting. This is something I wholeheartedly agree with.
> 
> That being said, I think you need to be careful when you start lumping together large groups of people and putting a single label on them. Just to bring up a couple of examples:
> 
> 1. Dolphin/Tuna advocates. ftshooter, in response to your question, yes it does happen. My understanding, based on some limited research, is that schools of Tuna often swim under pods of Dolphins. The idea is that by setting the net around the dolphins, you will also get a school of Tuna. This practice is illegal in the US and the US actually embargoes imports of Tuna from countries that still allow it. Note that the prohibition is on the intentional catch of dolphins. Most fishing fleets for the US have observers onboard that make sure that this doesn't happen. From what I've read, most of the advocacy groups for Dolphin-Safe Tuna are trying to ensure that the embargoes stay up on countries that continue the practice, as well as education and legislation efforts in those countries to reduce the problem. If you really want to read up on it, here are a few pages with some background:
> 
> http://www.maninnature.com/Fisheries/Tuna/tuna1a.html
> http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/international/aidcp.htm
> http://www.wto.org/English/tratop_e/envir_e/edis04_e.htm
> 
> 2. Anti-Animal testing advocates. This is an area that has a broad range of groups advocating different things. Some groups advocate a strict ban on all animal testing, something that I think is completely unreasonable. Other groups are advocating limited bans, while still more groups are trying to fund research for replacements for animal testing. I have friends who do biomedical research and their ideal would be to have some sort of synthetic model for testing (computer or chemical), since that essentially eliminates the variations that you see in natural species and allows for much quicker and large-scale testing of drugs, products, etc. Unfortunately, the technology is not yet at that level, so animal testing must continue. There may be some correlation between people in the strict ban camp and anti-hunting rights, but I don't think you can automatically imply the link.
> 
> I just wanted to point out that it's really easy to get upset about an issue and just turn it into an us vs. them argument. Also, as was correctly pointed out earlier in the thread, some people may be donating to causes based on a single aspect of the cause. I don't know that this automatically means that the donor is anti-hunting. It may mean that the donor is ignorant of the full scope of the organization, but that just means the donor didn't do their homework. The only real way to tell would be if the donor actually made a statement one way or the other. Perhaps you should actually write some of these people and see what their stance really is?
> 
> I think the key in this case is to not only discuss who may be supporting restricting hunting rights, but what you can do to ensure a future in which you're allowed to hunt. "The Natural"s idea of pooling money to purchase land so that you can set aside preserves sounds like a good idea. Another important step is to make sure you maintain a dialog with your elected representatives and local fish and wildlife agencies; you won't accomplish anything ranting about who wants to take away your rights on a bulletin board.
> 
> Good luck, and happy hunting
> 
> Derek


This is a bloviation of the smelliest order. Derek, are you out of your mind? Let's take these point by point, as the Truth Detector is here to help clarify and crystalize some very important information for you, as to help you better understand our ROLE in nature, and why certain things are the way they are.

1 - Dolphin-Safe Tuna - Being a former sales rep of Chicken of the Sea Tuna/ Van Camp Seafoods, and just so happened to sell tuna pre and post dolphin-safe era, let me 'splain how this happened, and the effects this has had on our own commercial fishing fleet. Many different species of tuna swim in the sea. Of the myriad of fish to catch, commercial tuna fishing centers around 3 species - Yellowfin, Skipjack and Albacore. Albacore, or Solid White Tuna, was moved away from netting and the method of long-lining for these silvery dandies took its place on the fishing fleets observing dolphin safe. End result was a moderate price advance, not to mention downsizing of consumer packed retail tuna from the standard 6.5 oz (9.75 oz, 3.25oz, and 12.5 oz) to 6 oz, 9 oz, 12 oz and 3 oz. This downsizing was done gradually (like 6.5 went to 6.25, then, 6.13, and finally 6) across all "cuts" of tuna. Yellowfin and Skipjack are used for the Chunk and Solid LIGHT. Yellowfin are a large, robust tuna, while skipjack are smaller, slightly oilier cousin. Yellowfin are notorious for feeding under schools of dolphin, as the tuna push the bait to the surface, and dolphin school up and feed on the herrings. Setting Purse Seine nets around the area where dolphin are schooling is a sure bet you'll get yellowfins. However, you do encounter some mortality from dolphins as well. Skipjack, which are smaller and more costly (through less yeild per fish) do not tend to push bait to where the dolphin roam, and use of electronics are better to find the skipjack. Now, what has happened to world porpoise populations since dolphin-safe was introduced? They've declined. At least the species we are trying to "save", which do not run in tuna waters to begin with! No, actually Heinz, makers of Starkist tuna, was introducing their latest bottle (plastic squeeze) during the big recycling push under Clinton, and in order to get the heat off their replacing a renewable through washing glass bottle, they gave the wackos the dolphins. More money in ketchup sales. The industry followed suit, but some Nations still do not abide by the agreements, not that even if they did would it make any difference. And as for our fleet? GONZO. AT least the tuna fishing industry, domestically, is now a shadow of its former self. Thanks wackos. I'm sure the former captains and mates and deck hands thank them too.

2 - Anti-ANimal testing. You need to do some homework my friend. The motivation behind stopping animal testing is "a total liberation of the animal from human domination." Go visit peta.org, or HSUS or another of these wacko groups spouting forth this nonsense. Part of liberating animals from human oppression is ceasing all hunting, trapping, fishing and any other NATURAL MEANS OF POPULATION BALANCE. Besides, animal testing is necessary for the exact reason you pointed out, only in reverse. All the computer modeling in the world cannot account for the "living" factor, Derek. Medicines, new surgical procedures, etc, all must be tested on living things before rolled out up the evolutionary scale. I do not like the testing of cosmetics, but, hey, we got plenty of animals. The pain of a few gives bennies to the many.

Finally, these organizations like PETA, HSUS, ALF, ELF, ASPCA, etc., ALL are fighting against hunting and trapping and angling (not to mention pet ownership, the fur trade, animal testing, eating meat! and farming - KFC and the holocaust), and anyone connected with an organization like PETA, HSUS or ASPCA, despite spouting they give for the house cats, are also supporting all the other stupidity. After all, you don't get to tell these folks where to apply you cash when you make a donation.

Therefore, if you care about wildlife, and care about animals, DO NOT SUPPORT THESE WACKOS. They see only the "good of the individual" and could care less about the continuance of a species.


----------



## dchenbecker

doctariAFC said:


> This is a bloviation of the smelliest order. Derek, are you out of your mind? Let's take these point by point, as the Truth Detector is here to help clarify and crystalize some very important information for you, as to help you better understand our ROLE in nature, and why certain things are the way they are.


So I try to have a rational discussion and you essentially call me a pompous ass (the definition of bloviate)? My past experience says it's useless trying to argue with the moderator, but here goes...



doctariAFC said:


> 1 - Dolphin-Safe Tuna - Being a former sales rep of Chicken of the Sea Tuna/ Van Camp Seafoods, and just so happened to sell tuna pre and post dolphin-safe era, let me 'splain how this happened, and the effects this has had on our own commercial fishing fleet.


While I appreciate the perspective that you have given your experience in the industry, I'm still more inclined to give more weight to the reports I've read that have been written by scientists involved with research on the issue.



doctariAFC said:


> Now, what has happened to world porpoise populations since dolphin-safe was introduced? They've declined. At least the species we are trying to "save", which do not run in tuna waters to begin with!


The studies that I've seen aren't saying that there is an increase in dolphin populations due to reducing the practice, but rather that there is a decrease in mortalities. Those two are not the same thing. I'm sure there are any number of other environmental factors (man-made and natural) that may contribute to the overall decline in the population.



doctariAFC said:


> 2 - Anti-ANimal testing. You need to do some homework my friend. The motivation behind stopping animal testing is "a total liberation of the animal from human domination." Go visit peta.org, or HSUS or another of these wacko groups spouting forth this nonsense.


I think you need to reread my post. I specifically mentioned that there are groups completely opposed to animal testing, and that I disagree with that. I also mentioned that there are groups that aren't nearly this extreme, just see:

http://altweb.jhsph.edu/about.htm

As for your assertion that we will never be able to replace animal tests with something else, I'd say you haven't been keeping up with biomedical engineering (not a lot of people do). Advances in medical technology are coming at an alarming pace, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see test "surrogates" within the next 15-20 years.

Saying that because some extremist groups like PETA support banning animal testing that any groups supporting reductions in animal testing are automatically anti-hunting is making an inference that isn't there. For the record, I think that PETA is pretty extremist, not to mention completely unreasonable on points like this.



doctariAFC said:


> ...not to mention pet ownership, the fur trade, animal testing, eating meat! and farming - KFC and the holocaust


OK, you lose me when you start to bring the holocaust into this...



doctariAFC said:


> Therefore, if you care about wildlife, and care about animals, DO NOT SUPPORT THESE WACKOS. They see only the "good of the individual" and could care less about the continuance of a species.


I didn't say you _should_ support these "WACKOS". I was merely trying to give some perspective that it's not merely a black-and-white issue. I was also trying to say that there are other, more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities.

Derek


----------



## NMhunter

Washi said:


> I've pretty much quit using Google because they block anything firearm related.


I just googled the word "Firearm" and it didn't block any. First site on the search was the homepage to Sterm Ruger. Maybe check your browser settings. Or firewall program.


----------



## doctariAFC

dchenbecker said:


> So I try to have a rational discussion and you essentially call me a pompous ass (the definition of bloviate)? My past experience says it's useless trying to argue with the moderator, but here goes...
> 
> 
> 
> While I appreciate the perspective that you have given your experience in the industry, I'm still more inclined to give more weight to the reports I've read that have been written by scientists involved with research on the issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The studies that I've seen aren't saying that there is an increase in dolphin populations due to reducing the practice, but rather that there is a decrease in mortalities. Those two are not the same thing. I'm sure there are any number of other environmental factors (man-made and natural) that may contribute to the overall decline in the population.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you need to reread my post. I specifically mentioned that there are groups completely opposed to animal testing, and that I disagree with that. I also mentioned that there are groups that aren't nearly this extreme, just see:
> 
> http://altweb.jhsph.edu/about.htm
> 
> As for your assertion that we will never be able to replace animal tests with something else, I'd say you haven't been keeping up with biomedical engineering (not a lot of people do). Advances in medical technology are coming at an alarming pace, and I wouldn't be surprised if we see test "surrogates" within the next 15-20 years.
> 
> Saying that because some extremist groups like PETA support banning animal testing that any groups supporting reductions in animal testing are automatically anti-hunting is making an inference that isn't there. For the record, I think that PETA is pretty extremist, not to mention completely unreasonable on points like this.
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you lose me when you start to bring the holocaust into this...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say you _should_ support these "WACKOS". I was merely trying to give some perspective that it's not merely a black-and-white issue. I was also trying to say that there are other, more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities.
> 
> Derek


Restate your post. There is no in between when dealing with Animal Rights wackos, Derek. It is about as black and white as it gets. Sorry, but now I am feeling a wet sensation on my neck, and I know it ain't raining.


----------



## dchenbecker

doctariAFC said:


> Restate your post. There is no in between when dealing with Animal Rights wackos, Derek. It is about as black and white as it gets. Sorry, but now I am feeling a wet sensation on my neck, and I know it ain't raining.


OK, I think I see the problem. I'm not using the dictionary definition of Animal Rights, I was equating it with Animal Welfare. That being said, I still don't think that lumping groups like CAAT or Dolphin advocacy in with people like PETA is fair or productive. I've been saying all along that I think PETA et. al are extremists and that I support hunter's rights, so I really don't understand the tone of your posts; I'd really like an explanation.

I still stand behind my assertion that there are much more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities. While you boycott their books/music/movies they'll continue to donate to groups that _actively_ work on legislation and preserves to reduce hunting.

Derek


----------



## doctariAFC

dchenbecker said:


> OK, I think I see the problem. I'm not using the dictionary definition of Animal Rights, I was equating it with Animal Welfare. That being said, I still don't think that lumping groups like CAAT or Dolphin advocacy in with people like PETA is fair or productive. I've been saying all along that I think PETA et. al are extremists and that I support hunter's rights, so I really don't understand the tone of your posts; I'd really like an explanation.
> 
> I still stand behind my assertion that there are much more productive ways to preserve hunting rights than to blacklist a few celebrities. While you boycott their books/music/movies they'll continue to donate to groups that _actively_ work on legislation and preserves to reduce hunting.
> 
> Derek


Fair enough. I will give you an explanation.

Animal Rights Groups are wackos. They put the value of an animal before the value of a human, and they put the value of an individual animal ahead of the survival of a species.

Anyone who supports any animal rights group, even with the "best of intentions" for fluffy and fido, are erroneously promoting an agenda that will hurt ecosystems, restrict freedoms, decimate wildlife populations and have long-lasting ill affects on our own survival as well (nature is relational, with every living being filling a purpose). We are all co-dependent on each other species for survival. This is a lesson somewhat taught in elementary school, and continues throughout wildlife biology studies (I have degrees in Marine Science and Biology - Marine SCience/ Biology was a double major at University of Miami). 

I can understand you mean well, Derek. However, celebrities would like nothing more than to get hunters and anglers out of the field, not buying fishing tackle and hunting gear and spending their time and money at the theatres and cinemas, lining their pockets. If you take the time to read some of the positions these pukes hold and promote, you will see the necessity to completely and utterly defeat and destroy this nonsensical and very dangerous Animal Rights BS. Incidentally, I hope you know that this FBI is fully investigating PETA, and the ties they have to Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, the two most dangerous domestic terrorist organizations in the USA. May Newkirk and her ilk get the prison time they so greatly deserve.

Oh, and, believe me when I tell you that I am one of the sportsmen in the trenches, fighting the nonsense on a daily basis, to assure future generations of their ability to hunt, trap and fish, and to make certain our children and their children and so on have the opportunity to learn about wildlife first hand, rather than in some classroom with a picture book and a teacher saying "I remember when...." Just read my signature line. I am on the front lines, and have a solid education in who the enemy is, what they stand for, their tactics and their resources. You can only reason with reasonable people, Derek. The Animal Rights movement, IN TOTAL is made up of unreasonable people. Anyone who would bomb medical research facilities, vandalize farms and the like are certainly not reasonable, by anyone's definition of the word.


----------



## dchenbecker

doctariAFC said:


> Animal Rights Groups are wackos. They put the value of an animal before the value of a human, and they put the value of an individual animal ahead of the survival of a species.


I completely agree, I don't think I said otherwise. The thing that got me started was that there were groups in the first list posted that didn't look like they were in the same league as PETA. If you're saying that it's an either/or situation, are there _any_ groups that are pro-animal welfare and not animal rights?



doctariAFC said:


> Anyone who supports any animal rights group, even with the "best of intentions" for fluffy and fido, are erroneously promoting an agenda that will hurt ecosystems, restrict freedoms, decimate wildlife populations and have long-lasting ill affects on our own survival as well (nature is relational, with every living being filling a purpose).


If we're talking strictly about "Animal Rights" as defined above, then I agree with that statement. I can't agree with it if that means you think the endangered species act should be revoked, or that cattle shouldn't be slaughtered in a humane manner, for instance.



doctariAFC said:


> Incidentally, I hope you know that this FBI is fully investigating PETA, and the ties they have to Animal Liberation Front and Earth Liberation Front, the two most dangerous domestic terrorist organizations in the USA. May Newkirk and her ilk get the prison time they so greatly deserve.


I'm well aware of their links, not to mentioned their own actions, that's why it struck me as odd that Dolphin advocacy groups and people promoting research into alternatives to animal testing would be lumped in with them.

Unlike PETA, neither of those groups are advocating a complete ban on fishing or lab work, they're trying to advocate alternatives. As for the reduction in the tuna fishing fleets/industries, I concede that the dolphin-safe practices may have led to an immediate diminishment of the fleets. However, overfishing in the Atlantic has led to recent problems with the cod stock, and the Japanese have voluntarily reduced their tuna fleets due to similar concerns. Like you said, nature is a balance and our continued stewardship of resources is critical to maintaining it.



doctariAFC said:


> Anyone who would bomb medical research facilities, vandalize farms and the like are certainly not reasonable, by anyone's definition of the word.


I completely agree.

Good luck and happy hunting

Derek


----------



## doctariAFC

Ok..... Look, "lumping in" is EXACTLY what the Animal Right's Groups do! They're very well organized, very determined and extremely well financed. If you do not think a connection exists between the dolphin-safe and some of these wacko groups, well, you can do the research

http://www.hsus.org/about_us/our_global_family_and_affiliates/
http://www.nahee.org/links.asp
http://www.humaneteen.org/
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/humane_society_international_hsi/
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/hsus_hollywood_office/
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/celebrity_support/
http://www.hsus.org/about_us/celebrity_support/stars_for_animals.html

http://www.peta.org/
http://www.peta.org/other.asp
http://www.petabusinessfriends.com/
http://www.animalactivist.com/

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/campaigns/trade-and-the-environment

I find it especially interesting reading concerning Greenpeace anti-whaling and HSUS anti-whaling...... Coincidence? Nope...

There's tons more, but this is a good start. Poke around and get educated and see exactly how the tentacles of this octopus reside. You'll be amazed, and, if you truly have a care for wildlife, and animals in general, you will do whatever you can to beat these wackos. Folks with good intentions, but supporting these groups and their agenda should be educated as to the DIRECT relationships to other Animal Rights Groups, which are exactly what we are talking about. 

You will be far better off if you trust the hunters, anglers, trappers and others, plus wildlife biologists and land managers who spend the time and do the homework out in the field, rather than from a college lecture hall. You learn so much more about nature as an active participant in the food chain than you can ever hope to learn by simply being a silent observer. WHat you learn is the reality of nature, and that is the foundation for sound stewardship.

These pukes? Dangerous to the environment, the wildlife, and indeed to ourselves.


----------



## JCBears

As bad as this may sound I am so glad that I fight and my friends died so that A) We can have this forum to chat B) That no matter how foolish someone may sound they can can still be as anti-hunting as they want. Now as I will say everytime I read something like this what can we as archers, outdoorsman, hunters, members of a free thinking democracy do about it.


----------



## shoff14

I don't see Ryan Newman and his wife in the thread.


----------



## ban_t

*Fox News Support*

Not sure how many have seen this but thought It should be Posted
Fox News will not air the anti-trapping Ads the HSUS sponsered 
Here is the news http://www.hunttheoutdoors.com/news/default.php?id=929
Good for us not so good for them


----------



## ban_t

http://www.activistcash.com/aboutUs.cfm Follow the money this palce helps

http://www.activistcash.com/index_organizations.cfm
If we follow the money You will Always know who is behind it
http://www.activistcash.com/index_celebrities.cfm

http://www.activistcash.com/index_keyplayers.cfm
This is right off Activistcash website So follow the money

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_officers.cfm/oid/136


----------



## JohnR

*We are our own worst enemies*

Some of these threads only add fuel to the fire....dollors to donuts the anti's reading AT. The antis are more passionate about there cause than hunters/fisherman about their heritage. (lazy?) 

National Hunting and Fishing Day is in September, so is hunting season here. The only displays and advertising for hunting going on are hunters dumping the gut pile, hides, heads and bones of their "harvest" on the road side turn-outs for everyone passing by to see.

We are very much in the minority and if we cannot spend the effort to keep our Heritage clean and positive we get what we deserve.

2006 showed another decrease in the sales of hunting and fishing licenses. We are below 14% of the population that hunt or fish and hunting is the minority in the group.

What are we going to do about it beyond bellyaching on AT or to the TV????!


----------



## Allen7791

Lets not forget about the recent teaming up of the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the HSUS in Oregon. And before someone tires to defend them because of why they did it the point is that they did. I don't care if you dont think its Ethical to high fence hunt it is noones business but the PRIVATE and I stress private landowners and the hunters. If you don't like it dont do it. its not your money.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip

Here is a recent post of mine on another forum

*The assertion:*

"you talk about those who hunted for pure survival back then and few today hunt solely for clothing and food and they have no choice far from civilization, no vegetation around, that is the way they will live.
you people on the other hand are not "hunters"..." 

*My response:*

I disagree.

I reject outright that I should have to engage with the community, through the economy, for any/every facet of my life, just because we now have a "civilization." There are plenty of people that do plenty of things for themselves while some do nothing and are completely reliant on others, for survival.

Let's talk about what we need to live and how we do it.

Some people build their own houses.
Some buy fixers uppers and are into Do It Yourself projects.
Some don't know how to turn a screwdriver.

Some people cut their own firewood. 
Some have it delivered.
Some use oil, gas, or electric heat and flip a switch.

Some people grow all of their own food.
Some supplement what they get from the stores with a garden.
Some have never been on a farm but rely solely on them.

Some people only eat meat that they kill
Some only eat fish that they catch
Some supplement what they get from the ranchers either a little, or a lot. 
Some have never gotten meat from anywhere but a grocery store.
Some have never eaten meat.

Some people home school and teach their kids everything
Some people teach their kids more at home than they get from school.
Some rely comletely on public education and teach their kids nothing.

It takes all kinds.
Do you feel equally compelled to tell all of these folks 
how their lives should be run in these other areas?

You're not qualified to tell me, or anyone else for that matter, how I should choose "to survive" in any of these endeavors, all of which arguably define survival.

I have the choice to listen to your suggestions.
I did. 
I'll pass.


----------



## Larv

http://www.ussportsmen.org/Read1.cfm?ID=2186&programdocs=AH

Add Barack Obama to your list of Arfer supporters!:cocktail:

Larv


----------



## 20ftup

This is a black and white issue. If they are not for our hunting rights you can bet your last dollar they are against us.


----------



## TheDuckBuster

I visited that ALF site or whatever man those people are crazy as hell. I understand everyone has a right to their own views and opinions but these people constantly talk about killing hunters and wishing us dead and for us to get hurt. I really really hate anti's and what they stand for but i never post on a public website that i want them dead or anything even to that extent. That right there just shows how crazy and serious these morons are. They put animals before humans.......UNLESS(key word) you are a anti then you are the next most important thing in the world besides themselves.


----------



## jetthelooter

Animals do not have rights. People have the responsibility to protect animals and practice proper hunting, fishing, and farming them in a responsible humane fashion.

animal rights activists are anti-humanists who believe that humans are evil and should be removed from the earth and play no part in the environment. 

my beliefs are that people have the responsibility to manage the world's animals through ethical hunting fishing and farming techniques.


----------



## Andy J

With regards to people buying land and then making it off limits to hunting, it seems as though hunters rarely look at oil companies as a major source of trouble. In Colorado we continuously have "land grabs" where large tracts of national forests and other public lands get sold at auction only to oil companies. That land will never be hunted on by you or me again. The Three Forks ranch in New Mexico, I believe, is a prime example of that. It is a huge chunk of once public land, bought by Exxon and now hunted only buy oil executives.


----------



## Carpshooter

bow weevil said:


> I am not going to post a bunch of links, but Americas sweetheart turned @@##$%# pamela anderson is a huge supporter of PETA. I didn't see her name on the list.


She's out of my dreams now,she's out of my dreams ,she's out of my dreams.I'm working on it !


----------



## Andy J

I don't know how many of you have noticed this but, with the exception of Derek, nearly all the comments are the same in this discussion. It is really nothing more than finger pointing and an on-line witch hunt. I think we can all agree that there are many organizations and people that are against hunting. Accept it. Not everyone agrees with you and I and that is their right. If you don't like it, then join a pro-hunting group. If you are already a member then increase your pledge. Many of you seem to think that hunting is the type of thing that you are either for or against. I have talked to many non-hunters about hunting and have found that many of them are just uninformed on the subject. After just a few minutes of talking I have noticed that many people see that hunting is at least necessary and many people are actually very impressed with bowhunting. If you want people on our side, then make a point to talk to people that are not necessarily for or against us. You are are not winning anyone over on this website. We all want to preserve hunting here. When you talk to people be respectful of their views and be clean...don't talk about the thickest blood trail you have ever followed and don't talk about how you made a gut shot last year then trailed a deer 10 miles and lost it. On another topic, many of the organizations that hunters seem to hate have actually had a huge benefit to our sport, particularly in the western states. Organizations like The Sierra Club and The Nature Conservancy have worked very closely with organizations like Pheasants Forever and The Rocky Mountain Elk foundation to buy land or prevent energy or land development in areas that are important to the game we hunt. In the end the biggest threat to hunting and fishing will be the loss of habitat.


----------



## gr8twhitehuntr

http://www.rspca.org.au

They used to be a charity funded organization dedicated to preventing abuse and neglect of animals. Now they have become like PETA and are clear on their stand against bowhunting. It states on their website that they are against the use of archery equipment to kill animals because it isn't as humane as using a firearm, even though the evidence found in many different studies says otherwise.


----------



## bdgerfn20

Washi said:


> I've pretty much quit using Google because they block anything firearm related.


...no they dont...or am i missing something? seriously i can go to any gun sight (remington sako winchester) using their serch engine


----------



## clint999

Have you caught the William Shatner's/Capt Kirk new Peta add on TV.

----------------

Just a heads up, it looks like Disney is looking to remake Bambi

Finally, Mel Gibson (search) the new Michael Eisner? A consortium of European investors is courting Mel to take over Disney.

"Gibson has the sensibilities Hollywood needs," according to a source close to the actor.

The people behind the push point to "The Passion" and say that's the kind of profitability they like. I like Bob Sommerby from dailyhowler.com's observation -- "that remake of Bambi is going to be brutal"


----------



## TrekJeff

Anyone ever watch the movie "Blooded"...check it out


----------



## Larv

The latest P&Y Newsletter has a very interesting article written by the B&C President regarding the animal rights movement.

Larv


----------



## Broadfoot

Bank of America has a HSUS credit card. I switched banks years ago because of this. Please don't bank with them!!

http://giving.bankofamerica.com/humane


----------



## mentaldetector

*e-bay?*

I forget on which forum I read this but the claim was that e-bay asks for donations for the HSUS after each purchase..I don"t recall if it was all purchases or just those related to hunting. can anyone confirm or discredit this claim? My purchase with E-bay have been few so I don't recall.


----------

