# They're smarter than we think!!



## horseman308 (Apr 17, 2006)

I just finished reading a large section of the Animal Liberation Front's website, especially their FAQ on hunting and fishing. Yikes. It's not at all what I expected. I expected aggressive, angry rhetoric that likened all hunters to mass murderers and called for our execution in a like manner. 

They do in fact refer to hunting as murder, and so I guess they call us murderers, but here's the rub: it wasn't angry; it wasn't aggressive (not anymore than we are sometimes). It was eloquent, well reasoned, and logical. Their arguments actually made sense.

Don't take that to mean I agree. There is a difference between something being logical and it being correct. However, and here's the important part, good logic is often mistaken for truth. I consider myself a smart, well reasoned person. I've put literally hundreds of hours into figuring out why I hunt: from moral, ethical, and practical standpoints. And my reasons are pretty logical. They make sense and are appropriately connected with my overall belief system.

Well, the responses of the ALF website to the FAQs directly attempt to refute many of the reasons I hunt, and and from a strictly debate-oriented point of view they do a good job. I assume that they will address many of your reasons, too. If I were not secure in my beliefs about hunting, I might buy into their rebuttals. 

Here's my point. My beliefs about hunting being a good thing, and their beliefs about it being a bad thing are both subjective. Most of the scientific evidence in existence can probably be split up evenly to support both sides. But they are using these subjective values to force an agenda that will put legal restraint on us. Once that happens, it's hard to go back. Each of us needs to seriously think about why we hunt, and why it is a good thing. Slogans such as "If it's brown it's down!" only make us look crazy. Reasons such as "Because I always have" simply don't cut it anymore when we are talking to the other side. 

They have persuasive, logical arguments for their beliefs, and if we don't get on the ball and have equally, or more persuasive, logical arguments for ours, we're going to be in trouble. Muster all the evidence you can, but understand it can be countered. 

Like many politically charged topics, I would bet that the majority of the population at large is on the fence between these two positions. Their opinions will be swayed in many cases by emotions. However, many people react emotionally to strong, persuasive, logical arguments. We have got to get on this if we are going to secure hunting rights for the future. We won't win everyone, but we can win enough to teach people what great lessons, rewards, and responsibilities can be attained by this lifestyle. 

I would encourage all of us to practice by spending some time writing up a "statement" of why we hunt, just for some practice. Nothing is worse for hunting than getting involved in a discussion with someone and coming away looking stupid because we couldn't explain ourselves well. To do this we need practice. This post is already way too long, so I'll start of later on a separate thread with my own statement, but start thinking and start writing. I truly believe that this is one of the most important things to do in order to keep our heritage and lifestyle alive. Thanks for letting me speak.

Robert Parker


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

horseman308 said:


> I just finished reading a large section of the Animal Liberation Front's website, especially their FAQ on hunting and fishing. Yikes. It's not at all what I expected. I expected aggressive, angry rhetoric that likened all hunters to mass murderers and called for our execution in a like manner.
> 
> They do in fact refer to hunting as murder, and so I guess they call us murderers, but here's the rub: it wasn't angry; it wasn't aggressive (not anymore than we are sometimes). It was eloquent, well reasoned, and logical. Their arguments actually made sense.
> 
> ...


Interesting..... But the basic, bottom line is this....

Nature set up the perfect system for maintaining balance in ecosystems. Its called the predator-prey relationship. Nature defines what creatures are predators and what creatures are prey - WE DO NOT. We have been defined as a predator, by Nature, and no logical argument can be made against this FACT.

The Predator-Prey relationship has been successful for 4.5 BILLION YEARS. It cannot be wrong. 

Now, until such pukes can convince that their ideas are more successful, based on their 30, 40 , 50 years of experience, than 4.5 BILLION YEARS of PROVEN SUCCESS, well, then perhaps all their "logic" makes sense. But, since you must dispense with the realiies of nature for their BS to make sense, well, I guess they cannot, nor ever will...

If anyone wishes to get into a debate with me about this, be prepared to be made to look like an ignorant and very arrogant being. Of this I know for sure, Nature is the ultimate truth, and we have zero influence over its laws. And we must abide by these laws, just like everything else on this planet.


----------



## horseman308 (Apr 17, 2006)

I actually do agree with you on this issue. My point was not that they are correct in their arguments, but that their arguments (at least on that website) we're made in such a way as to appear reasonable to the uninformed or undecided. Something does not have to be factually true in order for someone to present it in an intelligent fashion and convince others. Special interest groups, some media, and unscrupulous lawyers spin things all the time.

My point was that we know that we can never convince the truly dedicated ARA that hunting is good. Likewise, we know that the dedicated ARA will never be able to convince us that hunting is bad. What I'm worried about are those undecided and uninformed individuals who are not influenced primarily by the actual facts, so much as the way that a case is presented. Let's face it; Nazism was dead wrong, but it was presented in such a way that many people accepted it as right (and some still do). Perhaps this doesn't happen to others, but as for me, I'm tired of seeing hunters portrayed as or being thought of as ignorant, uneducated, ******** who like to kill things just for the heck of it, while the antis are seen as the educated, conscientious saviors of poor defenseless creatures. My statement was simply meant to encourage us as a group to demonstrate our knowledge in a way that is likely to win us support from those who normally would have no opinion, instead of letting the other side get there first and use the same concept against us. Let's be proactive.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

horseman308 said:


> I actually do agree with you on this issue. My point was not that they are correct in their arguments, but that their arguments (at least on that website) we're made in such a way as to appear reasonable to the uninformed or undecided. Something does not have to be factually true in order for someone to present it in an intelligent fashion and convince others. Special interest groups, some media, and unscrupulous lawyers spin things all the time.
> 
> My point was that we know that we can never convince the truly dedicated ARA that hunting is good. Likewise, we know that the dedicated ARA will never be able to convince us that hunting is bad. What I'm worried about are those undecided and uninformed individuals who are not influenced primarily by the actual facts, so much as the way that a case is presented. Let's face it; Nazism was dead wrong, but it was presented in such a way that many people accepted it as right (and some still do). Perhaps this doesn't happen to others, but as for me, I'm tired of seeing hunters portrayed as or being thought of as ignorant, uneducated, ******** who like to kill things just for the heck of it, while the antis are seen as the educated, conscientious saviors of poor defenseless creatures. My statement was simply meant to encourage us as a group to demonstrate our knowledge in a way that is likely to win us support from those who normally would have no opinion, instead of letting the other side get there first and use the same concept against us. Let's be proactive.


100% spot on! We need to unite, and no longer simply ignore these wackos. Hunters and angl;ers and trappers have taken a very passive posture when dealing with these terrorists, and their message is certainly slick and crafty, as is all terrorist messages to the stupid.

We should also look long and hard at the financials I posted regarding some of these orgs, and realize what level of resources they have in the game. Then, let's get committed, united, and take on their idiocy head on, with facts and the truth, not emotions. Take the message to the schools, the FACTS of life, and never let up.

Oh, and also, for anyone who hasn't visited these ARA sites, do so and get to know the enemy intimately. They are very eqasy to beat, but we have to do the hard work in fighting, because that is what is hard, the fight, but victory, if we work hard and together, we cannot lose.


----------



## 30XSniper (Mar 25, 2006)

What the animal liberation front doesn't realize that vegetables and fruit have rights and feelings too, and by attacking animal hunting only and not plant hunting is just plain wacky!!!!!


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip (Dec 30, 2005)

All you need to read is the ALF credo and mission statement.
They'll do our work for us.

That may well be enough to keep most from moving on to the more 'logical' (not necessarily correct) reasoning in the hunting/fishing section. 

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/mission_statement.htm

It sets the stage of throwing up walls of defense in the listener to everything else that is subsequently said.

I resisted the urge to stop inside 3 minutes of reading things that 99% of people probably disagree with and move on to figure out their stance on hunting/fishing.

They do have an interesting spin on what they consider acceptable/unacceptable human hunting behavior. 

http://www.animalliberationfront.com/Practical/Fishing--Hunting/FishHuntFAQ.htm

I have to agree with some of it. But just because some of it makes sense doesn't mean most, or much less, all of it makes sense. 

The fact is, people are going to walk away with both subjective and objective points of view which they then rationalize into the behaviors that they pursue. If everyone hunted, we'd have a problem. If no one hunted, we'd also have a problem. Depending on your point of view one would be bigger than the other.

As it is with most things in nature and mankind, things have a way of balancing themselves out. We can all take an active or passive role.

In addition, there's nothing truer than the law of nature regarding inertia/momentum.

Things in motion tend to stay in motion, and things at rest tend to stay at rest. I like the motion part.

So let's take this apart one piece at a time.

"#63 Humans are natural hunter/gatherers; aren't you trying to repress natural human behavior?
Yes. Failing to repress certain "natural behaviors" would create an uncivilized society."

We all agree.

"Consider this: It would be an expression of natural behavior to hunt anything that moves"

Nature disagrees. Nothing natural hunts anything that moves. Predators pick their prey based on a variety of reasons. Predators don't attack just anything and everything. The ALF admits as much later when they question why we don't attack field mice, as if there is something wrong with us in selecting what we hunt.

e.g. I don't hunt waterfowl because I don't like the way they taste.
I tried it and didn't like it...so decided to not hunt it. That's pretty natural.

The rest of this moves on to discussion of societal issues:
"(e.g., my neighbor's dogs or horses) and to gather anything I desire (e.g., my employer's money or furniture). It would even be natural behavior to indulge in unrestrained sexual appetites or to injure a person in a fit of rage or jealousy.
In a civilized society, we restrain our natural impulses by two codes: the written law of the land, and the unwritten law of morality. And this also applies to hunting. It is unlawful in many places and at many times, and the majority of Americans regard sport hunting as immoral. --DVH"

This paragraph sets up the reader to make a decision in favor of nature or society. Are you an animal or a human? The correct response is yes, and we (almost all) do agree to live in a civilized society and abide by the laws that we establish as a society. Those that don't get punished. This includes hunters. We have 'lots' of laws established by society, regarding hunting. 

It is unlawful in many places (safety) and MOST of the time to hunt. Maryland has one of the longest bow seasons (if not THE longest bow season) of all states. 

The writer then links lawful and immoral behavior.
He again, sets up the reader, to believe that its a choice. 
The fact is, MOST of our laws are a result of moral decisions that we've made as a society.

The writer suggests that most americans think sport hunting is immoral, so it must therefore be outlawed. Nothing could be further from the truth, and a simple history lesson sets the reader on the correct path.

We, as a society, decimated our populations of wildlife and fisheries in the US because we DIDN'T have laws on hunting. The initial laws that we did have were based on religion (Maryland blue laws), and some still exist today. The appearance is that we're not changing those blue laws any time soon either.

Without laws (other than blue), we began to see our wildlife disappear before our eyes. The laws that we subsequently enacted were for the preservation of endangered species.

We, as a society, decided that we needed to do something to protect both our wildlife AND our heritage. That was the creation of the laws that we have today on a state level, which have allowed the populations that we have to recover. 

Think of the bison. The bald eagle. Countless other creatures would no longer be here today, without the creation of these laws establishing societal (not moral) behavior. We established these rules in society because we had to, to preserve the species AND our heritage. We didn't establish these laws because of societal decisions that hunting was immoral. 

It was turned into a 'sport' by TDR and others as a means to a future; preserving wildlife for generations to come. Some will argue that this was a mistake. Great intentions. Great results. But the means could have been better, and that is what non hunters and non ara members of society perceive. Killing something ONLY because it has horns (and the bigger the better), doesn't sit well with most people. Our job as hunters is to explain to non-hunters that it is so much more than that. A nice 'trophy' is icing on the cake. For some it 'is' the cake, and that's okay too. Wanton waste is not.

By limiting what we take from mother nature, we ensure its future. That was, and I'll argue still is, the objective. We have to adjust when we're taking too little or not enough.

Society and nature are both about acheiving balance, and we have to do that together... not independently.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

oldbhtrnewequip said:


> All you need to read is the ALF credo and mission statement.
> They'll do our work for us.
> 
> That may well be enough to keep most from moving on to the more 'logical' (not necessarily correct) reasoning in the hunting/fishing section.
> ...


That last sentence says it all! You cannot separate one from the other, as society is at the mercy of nature. We also survive through balance of nature, which hunting certainly achieves. 

One correction ot the above, the laws governing hunting were not "established by society", per se. They were established by Sportsmen. Conservation philosophies were established by ..... SPORTSMEN.

Just some food for thought. 

Well done on the presentation of the nonsense spewed forth by ALF. It also shows how the liberal wackos must redefine reality in order to make any sense.

Thanks


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

What is presented on their website as it pertains to hunting is likely not their original work, rather it is likely stuff taken from a variety of other anti hunting websites. 

As a result, no creedence or credit of decency should be attributed to the animal liberation front.

For example their statement of " It is estimated that for every animal a hunter kills and recovers, at least two wounded but unrecovered animals die slowly and painfully of blood loss, infection, or starvation " was featured on peta's website about 4 or 5 years ago.

BTW I've used the following to debunkthe previous statement ...

Go to the following website and check out the year 2002 estimated deer population, the year 2002 deer harvest, and the year 2003 deer population estimate. 

http://www.huntingnet.com/huntingInformation/?state=Pennsylvania

2002 estmated deer population 1,500,000 animals

2002 deer harvest 517,529 animals

Number that would die if their statement above were true 1,552,587 ( 3 times deer harvest ) or 50,000 more deer than the state's estimated population. 

Thus if what they are saying is true, then ....

A) Hunter's actions in 2002 would have resulted in the death of more deer than the state's total estimated population, without taking into consideration non hunting related deer fatality causes. 

and

B) How can there be an estimated 1,500,000 deer in PA in 2003 if all of the deer should have been wiped out using simple arithmetic based upon their claim?


*******

Just because what is written may sound eloquent and convincing does not mean it can not be debunked with indisputable facts.


*******
AS it pertains to debunking ...

IMO here are a couple of keys to doing so.

1) The need to debunk everything all at once is unnecessary. Start with debunking a few simple statements and build from there.

For example ...

Here is one statement they make about hunting on their website, with simple a debunk.



> Natural predators help keep prey species strong by killing only the sick and weak.


If there is no sick and weak prey available, do predators stop pursuing potential prey ?

Natural predators kill whatever is easiest for them to catch. Prey which may indeed be sick or weak, but also prey that may be strong and healthy depending on what is available. 

The only difference between natural predators taking sick and weak vs strong and healthy prey is the ease of which the prey may be caught.


Which brings me to the second step

2) Much of what they claim can be debunked by applying a simple question of " IF - THEN - WHY ? " to their claims and seeing if their credentials pass muster.

Here is another debunk of one of their statements.



> and the majority of Americans regard sport hunting as immoral


A few years ago voters in Wisconsin were asked to vote on an amendment to their state constitution to make hunting, fishing, and trapping a guaranteed right.

The vote passed by a more than 4 to 1 margin.

Here is a limited link to that vote

If the previous statement made by them were true, then wouldn't it be conceivable that the vote should have reflected the opposite results ?

Or in other words .... If the majority indeed regards hunting as immoral, then why when asked whether it should be constitutionall protected did they not vote accordingly to that claim ?

***********

One of the biggest challenges to countering their claims, especially those which are written to sound convincing is getting as many hunters as possible to come up with indisputable debunks. For with each hunter's input, we can gain more ammo when it comes to punching holes in their attacks on us.

************

If I get a chance what specific claims are they making that you would like to see me take a shot at debunking ?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Tim4Trout said:


> What is presented on their website as it pertains to hunting is likely not their original work, rather it is likely stuff taken from a variety of other anti hunting websites.
> 
> As a result, no creedence or credit of decency should be attributed to the animal liberation front.
> 
> ...


Darned pesky little facts again.Like we all know, in order for any of what these ARWs say to make sense, we all must first abandon reality....

Gotta get this word out loud and clear. No more not challenging these knuckleheads.


----------



## aceoky (Mar 17, 2006)

Whatever one thinks about them, they are organized, determined to end all archery hunting Nationwide and have Milllions of $ devoted to that end..........


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip (Dec 30, 2005)

I spend 1-2 weeks in the Adirondacks (almost) every year, so I know 
a little about the history of game laws developed in New York.
I probably know enough to be dangerous.
I'm sure you can give me an education.
We don't disagree....but we're into the area of fine tuning.



doctariAFC said:


> One correction ot the above, the laws governing hunting were not "established by society", per se. They were established by Sportsmen. Conservation philosophies were established by ..... SPORTSMEN.


NO doubt conservation 'philosophies' were established by Sportsmen.

New York and Maryland both have an extremely rich history of law development when it comes to natural resources. TDR, the epitomy of conservationists, sort of started the conservation movement as a result of the devastation imparted on the Adirondacks by 'sportsmen' coming out of NYC. There were others before him who used his stature and love of the woods to promote their goals. They became his goals. The fact that he was a president when this came about has something to do with my view that 'society' invoked the laws. He was after all part of society (highest?) and responsible for laws (federal). The fact that he was a conservationist and sportsman is a huge part of the equation. The fact that he was president probably had more to do with his ability to influence law than anything else. He did this at both the state and federal level. So whether TDR is a sportsmen or president first at this time is the issue. 

It shouldn't be lost on anyone that it was easier for the fed to deal with the states on influencing laws than it was for the Fed to deal with each county on an individual basis. He became THE unifying influence at the federal level for sure, and had a lot to do with influencing what happened 'inside' states.

The sportsmen, got together and supported each other for the common good.
They were successful because of the wealth and infuence. Arguably they were 'high society' that took to the field. This started in the early 1900's. 

I agree that most of the 'modern' laws we have, in the US, regarding hunting are a result of the influence of conservation. NO question. But there were many laws 'established' by those with the power to do so, well before 1900.

Previous/Initial laws used in the US were developed as a result of English tradition and influence. You could argue that the nobility of England were sportsmen or again 'high society.' It was pretty much a free for all, but there were some early laws....blue laws...imposed by society, which at that time was a predominantly religious society. There was no real need to establish laws (by the economic society or sportsmen) because of the tremendous wealth.

Those that came here who were given land grants (Lord Baltimore), exercised their influence over their domains and started the division of law between allowable/unlawful activity on public and private hunting land. Most of the 'tradition' that we have today is a result of influence on guests on private property. When it comes to deer hunting...principally...not taking does. Queen Anne's county on the eastern shore has a rich history of fox hunting tradition.

You can also say that there were virtually no laws other than property rights for a very long time. Animals were viewed as rightful property if you could capture/shoot 'em.

A number of early moden laws, were truly established by society, as we recognized that resources were starting to be depleted and had an economic impact. This started to happen at the state and county level across the eastern US in the 1890's as 'we' (society) recognized that we didn't have limitless resources. Many of these laws were unenforceable because they didn't have the financial resources to establish/provide the policing function.

Society wasn't talking about this for the sake of conservation, but for inter-state protectionism against other folks coming in and taking resources away from the local population that was using it for a livelihood. 

Sound familiar?

We STILL have the same issues occuring today between Maryland and Virginia watermen, although at that time it was more about protecting the riches of the Chesapeake from those from Philly and New England.

"Sportsmen" were interested in conservation, while Joe Average was (still) interested in putting food on the table or bartering game meat/fish for things he needed. Many of the early laws established by sportmen, or the elite, or society, were ignored by the general public because people had to eat. This was especially true of the folks in the Adirondacks and folks in Maryland. 

The counties didn't have the resources to police so they gave their authority to the state, who took the authority to license on an in state and out of state level, which still exists today. Those licenses were for both commercial and recreational activity. Which still exist today, at least in fisheries. Every state was different in the way it decided on continuing to allow commercial
use of wildlife, or to restrict it to....predominantly....sportsmen.

Those resources were subsequently paid for by.... sportsmen through licensing. I believe that most state organizations are financially supported either exclusively or primarily through the sale of licenses today.
I could be schooled on that subject.

If anyone has a different view I'm all ears.


----------



## oldbhtrnewequip (Dec 30, 2005)

Tim4Trout said:


> If I get a chance what specific claims are they making that you would like to see me take a shot at debunking ?


I'd really like to see some references to how hunting is supported financially, on both a state and national basis. If there are any references that you have which show how our resources police are supported, on a state by state level, that would be good to have. 

We talk about how many $M they have pitted against us.
We need to talk about how many $M we have in economic power against them.

Do you know when the next usfw census is due?


----------



## Selil (Sep 5, 2005)

Logic is not truth. It is a framwork of structuring an argument. There are many fallacies of logic that occur and are missed by many. A perfectly logical argument can be flawed by reasoning without evidence, circular logic, ad hominem attack, superori arguments (from experience), an more. 

Worse is the fact a logical argument can be flawed by an agenda. In the case of anything political where the rights and needs of people is of concern an agenda is almost always going to occur.


----------

