PDA

View Full Version : PETA wants fishing banned


CarlL
03-08-2005, 01:26 PM
Take a look at this!!!!! I wonder how far down their list you'll find Striped bass.
:mad:



Group Calls Fish Intelligent, Sensitive; Wants Fishing Banned

POSTED: 1:03 pm EST March 7, 2005
UPDATED: 1:51 pm EST March 7, 2005

LINCOLN, Neb. -- An animal rights group has a beef with the state fish.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is asking Gov. Dave Heineman to declare the channel catfish, Nebraska's state fish, off limits to fishing.

PETA launched a campaign last year to ban fishing, arguing that it is a cruel thing to do and that fish are intelligent, sensitive animals no more deserving of being eaten than a pet dog or cat.

"We ought to protect channel catfish in a manner appropriate to a state symbol ensuring that they don't suffer needlessly at the hands of anglers," said the letter sent Friday and signed by Karin Robertson, who is identified as PETA's fish empathy project manager.

Heineman rejected the request. "Fishing is a time honored tradition in Nebraska, and I have no intention of modifying Nebraska's fishing guidelines," he said.

The channel catfish, a popular fish with distinctive barbels that look like whiskers, was named Nebraska's state fish in 1997 by then-Gov. Ben Nelson.

<end>

David Churbuck
03-08-2005, 01:38 PM
Any organization that employs a person with the title of "Fish Empathy Project Manager" deserves our sympathy.

Bob Parsons
03-08-2005, 01:50 PM
no more deserving of being eaten than a pet dog or cat.

Doesn't PETA know there are some places in the world where these are eaten. Thus the fish do deserve to be munched.

DAQ
03-08-2005, 01:58 PM
I would rather start eating dogs and cats than stop fishing. Hell, I'll be in the Philippines starting on Friday so I might unknowingly dine on Fido.

D

hyefly
03-08-2005, 02:01 PM
well dogs and cats eat better than most of the other animals we eat.. maybe its not a bad idea.

JoeA
03-08-2005, 02:17 PM
I think we should start eating the PETA people!! --126-3- (#$119) :eek:

detra
03-08-2005, 02:29 PM
It's my contention that commercial fisherman are first on the animal rights wacko's agenda. They will argue that fish stocks are depleted (which they are) and that fisheries need to be protected from commercial interests. Next they will argue that recreational fisherman take home more fish than the commercials did (probably true!). So what, we all catch and release right? Wrong, the next argument will show that a high percentage of released fish die. There goes fishing in the US.

If recreational and commercial fisherman unite we have a chance to stop this insanity. Unfortunately it's easier said (uniting) than done.

Bob Parsons
03-08-2005, 02:32 PM
If they ban fishing, well based on the comments in the epo thread, we can still slip in a few hours fishing daily http://www.reel-time.com/forum/images/smilies/brow.gif

hyefly
03-08-2005, 02:35 PM
I wonder how much the fish population would grow if there was a ban for a year. Or two years even. Not that I want that, but I would imagine that there would be a huge increase in population.

bdowning
03-08-2005, 02:36 PM
Right, it would work about as well as Prohibition did :rolleyes: .

-bd

If they ban fishing, well based on the comments in the epo thread, we can still slip in a few hours fishing daily http://www.reel-time.com/forum/images/smilies/brow.gif

seatrout
03-08-2005, 02:40 PM
Don't ever underestimate PETA. They are a devious bunch of "whacko's" who under the guise of animal rights have done substantial damage to our rights and to the populations of creatures they say they are helping. Their base is emotional and unscientific and they do have a large audience of aspiring "do-gooders" who listen to their drivel!

stripah
03-08-2005, 02:58 PM
PETA
People for Eating Tasty Animals :brow

Mark Cahill
03-08-2005, 03:07 PM
This on my FLog today...

http://reel-time.com/blogs/cahill/?p=87

Bates Grad Tries to End Fishing Club (../blogs/cahill/?p=87)

Tuesday, March 8th, 2005 at 8:44 am

In another classic episode of "The PETA Follies" their "Outreach Director" J. Coulter Leslie has requested that Bates College in Maine, his alma mater, discontinue their student fishing club. Chester Clem, the club’s president is cited in the Portland Press Herald as supporting his right to voice his opinions, but that he will not give up fishing.

Okay, I’m willing to make this prediction: The only time Bates has heared from this alum is via this request. No donations, etc. If you’re a Bates grad, I suggest supporting your school with a donation earmarked for the fishing club. Read more here. (http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/050308batesfish.shtml)

aws
03-08-2005, 03:23 PM
Don't ever underestimate PETA. They are a devious bunch of "whacko's" who under the guise of animal rights have done substantial damage to our rights and to the populations of creatures they say they are helping. Their base is emotional and unscientific and they do have a large audience of aspiring "do-gooders" who listen to their drivel!

I very much underestimate PETA w/r/t their power to influence our fishing rights, but I'd love to be proven wrong and hear what they have accomplished that limits our fishing rights in an unscientific way. I sort of view them like I view the NRA scaring hunters that the democrats are out to take all our guns by which they keep our eye off the ball, which in this case is excess commercial fishing of certain species and habitat/water quality degradation across the seaboard just like w/ hunting the issue is more loss of habitat with over-development and access with privatization of public lands rather than loss of guns. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just can't imagine these guys having much say in fisheries management and don't really view them as a threat, at least relative to the comm.. and pollution/over-development lobbies. PETA seems more like an extreme fringe that few will regard in important decisions, but perhaps I'm being naive

bdowning
03-08-2005, 03:34 PM
This guy managed to get into Bates? Perhaps they should tighten their admissions requirements (#$119) .

-bd

This on my FLog today...

In another classic episode of "The PETA Follies" their "Outreach Director" J. Coulter Leslie has requested that Bates College in Maine, his alma mater, discontinue their student fishing club.

albacized
03-08-2005, 04:23 PM
I think we should start eating the PETA people!! --126-3- (#$119) :eek:

I was always told to eat my veggies.

bunker
03-08-2005, 04:26 PM
I'm curious if any of these "friends of animals" have pets or if they practice zero population growth or even if they work on any other enviromental issues.The reason I ask these questions is that pet food contains fish meal as their protein base and you know where that comes from. ZPG as habitat loss and water quality is one of the leading causes of wildlife loss.

Don't underestimate them as they have a lot of friends in the entertainment industry who as we all know can't stay off the soap box.

Joey Langan
03-08-2005, 05:10 PM
Pet and animal right
Exageration agency that is a
Total
Annoyance

:brow

anut
03-08-2005, 05:11 PM
Does this mean they are going to start throwing red paint on sushi bars?

Why do they think they have pointy teeth in the front of their mouths? Cumcumbers?

RJ
03-08-2005, 06:02 PM
DAQ -

Don't worry about dog meat!

I do recommend the monkey on a stick! Makes "Thai Sataay Chicken" taste like cardboard! :-% :brow

Under no circumstances accept a plate of "ba-lute"! fertalized chicken and duck eggs buried for at least 6 weeks to develop the embryo to a still born chicken.

It is permissible to bite the head off and spit it on the tavern floor. But you must legs and all.

IT took gallons of beer to get me to the point of being a "Ba-Lute" tasting king!

(#$119) (#$119)

PETA means - People eating tasty animals! :eek:

DAQ
03-08-2005, 07:29 PM
RJ,

Did the Balute thing a few trips ago, last time I had chicken feet and what I believe was dolphin (not the fish).

D

Keepah
03-08-2005, 09:40 PM
These are the same people that glue signs together to picket and didn't stop to think where the glue came from. :confused:

haguebrook
03-08-2005, 09:58 PM
These PETA folks would run over a homeless vet in their haste to get to a funeral for a spotted owl. (#$119)

While we are at it, why not ban all paper and paper products? After all, trees are used to create paper, and logging contributes to a loss of habitat for wildlife and helps to ruin waterways. The best part about it is that PETA would not be able to put up signs or bulletin boards because of a lack of paper! --127-3- :-% --127-3-

bunker
03-08-2005, 10:21 PM
Hey. Leave those trees alone. They're living things too ya know.

eddie
03-08-2005, 11:26 PM
"Don't ever underestimate PETA. They are a devious bunch of "whacko's" who under the guise of animal rights have done substantial damage to our rights and to the populations of creatures they say they are helping. Their base is emotional and unscientific and they do have a large audience of aspiring "do-gooders" who listen to their drivel!"

this statement does EXACTLY what the poster claims that PETA is guilty of. In an effort to apeal to our emotions, he claims that PETA has "done substantial damage to our rights and the creatures...".
Give us some proof or give us a break.
No one in America cares what PETA thinks, except for hysterical sportsmen, who fail to see the the REAL threats to the resource (way of life) that we all love: Habitat destruction, over fishing, and pollution.
Sportsmen lose chunks of their fishing heritage every day, and vote for the same polliticians that enable the destruction of the resource. And then they whine about PETA. Go figure?
Beef is more popular than ever. Isn't anyone listening to Angelina Jolie? Guess not. (#$119)
You want to stop PETA? Take a kid fishing. Let people know that sportsmen aren't blood thirsty goof balls that get drunk and kill for fun. Take a kid fishing. Share the love and that kid will do the same one day.
Or, waist everyones time crying that the sky is falling. --124-3

IFTIA
03-09-2005, 04:51 AM
I'm not so sure it's a load of bull. Look what happened to the "Ban Cruel Traps" movement. It went statewide and now we are just beginning to reap the "benefits." Noticed the increased roadkill lately? When exactly did coyotes start to become a problem around here? We do it to ourselves. Ain't democracy wunnerfull?

sandy
03-09-2005, 06:36 AM
I helped start the Bates Fly Fishing Club and I believe they now have a separate fishing club for general fishing as well. What a joke. Bates would never get rid of them, although I don't know much about their new president.

detra
03-09-2005, 08:30 AM
Though they are a bunch of crackpots, PETA gets a lot more press than recreational fisherman do. IMHO battles are won and lost with the media, not with politicians.

eddie
03-09-2005, 08:31 AM
Sorry for the tone in my last post. It was a little harsh. Still, I think that sportsmen scapegoat PETA when the decline of sporting opportunities has hardly anything to do with liberals, conservation groups and humane/veggie organizations. Plain and simple, kids today (and adults for that matter) have less time and opportunity to enjoy fishing. Their intrests are divided by so many other sports and activities. Parents have less time to spend with their kids and the "great out doors" is shrinking. It's getting to be a longer drive to get to good water.
So less kids get into it, and when they become tax paying voters, they don't get it. But clearly alot of sportsmen don't get it either. We have no one but our selves to blaim.

Howie
03-09-2005, 08:52 AM
Won't Someone Think Of The Orphaned Cabbage

I am starting FETV

Fisherman for the ethical treatment of vegtables. Who can ignore the rampant consumption of tofu????

aws
03-09-2005, 09:16 AM
who fail to see the the REAL threats to the resource (way of life) that we all love: Habitat destruction, over fishing, and pollution.
Sportsmen lose chunks of their fishing heritage every day, and vote for the same polliticians that enable the destruction of the resource. And then they whine about PETA.
You want to stop PETA? Take a kid fishing. Let people know that sportsmen aren't blood thirsty goof balls that get drunk and kill for fun. Take a kid fishing. Share the love and that kid will do the same one day.
Or, waist everyones time crying that the sky is falling. --124-3

I totaly agree....though ridiculous and annoying, PETA is the least of our concerns as sportsmen!

Sean Juan
03-09-2005, 02:39 PM
Hey Peta is Anti-Pet too...

No joke they equate it with Slavery.

Joey Langan
03-10-2005, 07:00 PM
Ill be the first to join the FETV Howie

Howie
03-10-2005, 07:23 PM
See that friends - the revolution has begun!

Grab your pitchforks and torches - we march on Trader Joe's at dawn! --126-3-

fly
03-10-2005, 07:48 PM
These people are not to be underestimated. The same crowd has got fox hunting banned in the UK, where I come from.

They are "single issue facists" are are to be addressed as such. If you dismiss them as nut jobs you are effectively standing aside and letting them crap on your lawn.

It is interesting that the countries that seem to harbour this sort of malignant know-betterism are generally the best off.

When I come across these people I make a point of taking them on, verbally and very aggressively, every time. If the public rounds on them there is some hope that they will eventually get the message that they and their cause is marginal. Nobody likes being unpopular.

When you see or these pople and hear these sort of views, don't let them pass. If you don't stand up for your recreation and livelihood, they will surely be taken from you.

On a lighter note, I find it helps to remember that if God had wanted us to be vegetarians, he wouldn't have made animals out of meat.

averagejoe
03-10-2005, 09:41 PM
I get the munchies when i go to the aquarium.

eddie
03-10-2005, 10:55 PM
Fly, in the states, PETA has ZERO traction. By fighting with them, you are giving them what they want. ATTENTION. I will ignore them, and share my passion for fishing with those that are receptive. Sell the sport, if you will. I certainly won't be reduced to their level.
I am sorry that things are different in the U.K. I suspect that if fox hunting were a past time that everyone could participate in, it would never have been banned. It is hard to feel sorry for royals and their wealthy cronies running down foxes with their pure bread dogs and horses.
Here in the states, there is still plenty of opportunity for the commoner to wet a line.
Do you really miss fox hunting?

fly
03-10-2005, 11:38 PM
Eddie

They have enough traction to be regularly on this site, for one. That has not always been the case.

I am sorry to appear rude, but if you do some homework before sounding off about commoners, royals and who can and can't hunt, you won't be so obviously talking from a position of ignorance. Everyone can (could) hunt, and all manner of people do (did). Rich, poor and inbetween - builders, postmen, policemen, farmers, teachers, labourers, earls, lords, plasterers, financiers, retail clerks. The toffs are minority on the field. Do some research before you buy the cliche.

They do (did) it with all sorts of horses. You comment about hounds is absurd. Of course they are pure bred - they are fox hounds. Would you take a chichuaha on a pheasant shoot or herd sheep with corgis?

Wether I miss hunting or not is irrelevant, as is your lack of sympathy.
The illiberalism of the ban is the point; the sheer single issue facism, as I said.

You have more of a case about commoners wetting a line. One of the great joys of living here is the access to water - a real difference between the two countries, and a right I will defend vigorously whenever I encounter Peta nazis.

Their goal is not attention, it is to ban fishing. Treating them as you would a spoilt child won't work.

You are free to ignore them, but don't whine when they win.

I absolutely agree with you that the other side of the coin is to sell the sport. I have helped many, many people to open their eyes to the joy of spending time on the water, and hope to be able to continue to do so.

If you would like to know more about the hunting issue I will be very happy to provide lots of resource that will enable you to see the fuller picture.
PM me and I'll send it over.

Tight lines

eddie
03-11-2005, 07:26 AM
I was being sarcastic about the royals etc. This was to highlight my point that fox hunting is assumed to be an elite activity, hence little sympathy. I did not realize that common folks enjoyed fox hunting in the UK (it seems so expensive). I did not realize that all hunting was banned in the UK (as you imply). Thanks for clearing that up.
The US is a different place, with different people and traditions. The fact that PETA is discussed often on fishing web sites has more to do with the anti-liberal spin machines playing on sportsman's fears and ignorance. Please understand that I have nothing but contempt for "single issue facists" like PETA and the NRA.
I wish that the same passion and outrage would be directed towards the REAL and most pressing threats to anglers. Those being: Over fishing. Habitat loss. Pollution, and I'll add Access to the resource. PETA doesn't even rank.

Howie
03-11-2005, 09:01 AM
I think that it might be a little dangerous to compare pack hunting with fishing. If I am not mistaken, a majority of Britons were in favor of this. That is the fundamental difference here. You'd never find majority support in the US to ban fishing. In truth, fishing has the highest levels of participation of any recreational sport in the US. The risk to angling in America is much less than the risk to fox hunting in the UK.

As far as the commoners enjoying hunting with pack dogs, this is what I found on the web.

quoting here:
Elected members of parliament have repeatedly voted overwhelmingly for an end to hunting with dogs in the past, but their efforts have always been blocked by the unelected House of Lords.

If I am not mistaken here, the House of Lords is comprised of upper class folks with a "historical" (non-elected) claim to those seats. It would seem that the average joe wanted an end to this, but the minortiy did not. That is why the PETA claim is laughable - it just won't happen here.

I agree that PETA is a bit wacky to say the least. But an end to fishing - it just won't happen. I don't think that PETA was even the group that got the fox-ban in place. Frankly I don't think they have the coordination to pull that off, but I'll look into it. Everyone here would agree that any sort of radicallism is generally a bad idea, but to misrepresent disliking the result of an animal rights movement as going against the will of the people - that is equally reprehensible. I realize that this may be seen as an erosion of personal rights - never a good thing in ANYONE's book. But it was apparently the will of the masses, and that is a right that should be held higher than any individual law.

teflon_jones
03-11-2005, 09:13 AM
I joined PETA a couple of years ago. I'm trying to change them from the inside. At our last meeting, I was in charge of bringing the main dish. I can't believe how upset a bunch of people can get at eating a little hamburger. They thought they were the best tofu burgers they'd ever tasted before I told them! --123-3

haguebrook
03-11-2005, 10:16 AM
I get the munchies when i go to the aquarium.
Funny point. Did you ever notice that there is a Legal Sea Foods is right across from the NE Aquarium? After a few hours of looking at the cute fish, a family can feast on them right next door.

I am surprised that PETA has not jumped on this. Unjust imprisonment and cruel gastronomy in one fell swoop! --125-3

fly
03-11-2005, 10:24 AM
Howie

I am afraid you are mistaken on several counts:

The majority of Britons were disapproving of fox hunting, but the same majority did not want it banned. The majority that banned it was Blair's majority in the lower legistlature - the House of Commons.

You are also mistaken as regards the House of Lords.

In 1999, Parliament passed an act removing more than six hundred Hereditary Peers from the House of Lords, leaving only ninety-two. Today, Parliament is considering sweeping changes to the method of selecting Lords, including a combination of election and appointment (the ninety-two hereditary peers would be removed), with a commitment to regional and minority representation. Instead of sitting for life, peers would sit for fixed terms. "

Hereditary lords are a tiny minority. Generally Lords are appointed (made Lords, if you like) by the Government of the day. They are are often people of modest backgrounds. Blair has been in power a long time and the Lords is a Labour house, which speaks volumes when you see that they opposed the ban - they did so out libertarian concern.

Regarding commoners and minorities hunting, you seem to be mixing up the House of Lords (a legislative body) with the hunting field (farms, hedges, etc). Lords don't legislate in the wild, and foxes don't roam the House of Lords. If you want to know more about who hunts (hunted) you'll need to do better than jump to erroneous conclusions based on thirty seconds surfing and not reading the question.

I am not misrepresenting anything. Fox hunting was banned due to a combination of a very vocal minority and Blair's appeasement of the class wariors in his government - he threw them a scrap whilst he got on with the real work. The last thing this was was an animal rights movement, believe me.

Lastly, I was not comparing fox hunting and fishing. I was making the point that if you ignore these people they WILL gain traction. To illustrate this I mentioned fox hunting. I could have mentioned fur farming - also banned in the UK by single issue fascists. The same is true of target pistol shooting and all handgun ownership.

Now, I hope and believe that PETA do not CURRENTLY represent a threat to something that you and I both love, Howie. The difference between us is that you think they will never represent a threat, whilst I take them at face value and am, through my experience of seeing what can happen, not prepared to take the risk of ignoring them when I come across them

Good luck with your lawn.

Howie
03-11-2005, 10:58 AM
...Not that he asked to be defended.......

....and let me also stress that these views are my own, and nothing official....

I challenge your assertion that Eddie is the one speaking from a position of ignorance. Being from the UK does not give you a monopoly on the truth. You can threaten him with facts, however you had better be prepared to defend them. As reported by British Press, a small minority tried to overrule the wishes of the masses. You spoke of fact. Let's hear them.

Some things to think about.

The Foster bill (1997) recorded 411MPs in favor of the ban. The House of Lords overrulled any attempts to ban it.

Multiple surveys showed a high percentage of Britions against THIS TYPE of hunting, not hunting in general. It is unethical to say that the attempt was to ban hunting in general. The percentage of people who were against it were well outside any margin of error.

The mere fact that a majority was overruled by a minority to keep this type of hunting legal, suggests that the will of the people was ignored for 20 years.

Those in favor of saving this type of hunting did the below:
-Argue this if you want, but I'll give you the link - to the BBC website.
"We have seen a dead horse dumped on a street in Brighton with a placard impaled in his body." sounds like something that PETA would do, but it was the aristocratic minority you are so quick to defend.

Let me put this another way:

I am no enviro-nazi. I rip around in a boat with a 2 stroke inefficient engine. I catch fish, and I eat some. I am in no way anything like the PETA crowd. But I truly believe that the people on this board are more than capable of deciding which issues need our attention. Look at the number of posts regarding the herring population. These people are more than capable of rising up when the time is right.

They are also capable of getting very angry when being told how to react. Chastize anyone you want, but I can promise you this, just because this issue takes place across the pond does NOT mean that you can use it to criticise anyone in the RT community. Being that Eddie was clearly stating an opinion, I find it highly inappropriate that you characterize his opinion as ignorant - especially since you claim to speak with the backing of fact. Normally I'd have left your post alone. But to claim to use fact to illustrate another's "ignorance" - those facts had better be right on. Would you like to see lists of who voted which way. Those are FACTS.

As far as the fox hunting ban - it doesn't affect me. As far as holding off the PETA types of the world - thanks for the advice, but history shows that we are doing just fine.

Howie
03-11-2005, 11:10 AM
Let me put this another way.

I work for a living. I work to feed my family. I am able to separate personal feelings from anyone else (employers/politicians/anyone else).

Did you notice that I was very careful to cite the fact that this was purely my opinion and that of noboady else. You might've done well to wonder why.

Anyone who has been on this board in the past few months will probably attest to the fact that I am a little crazy, but generally like a thousand other anglers you may meet. I live to fish and place it only behind my wife and daughter in importance in my life.

Having said this, if you want the facts, I can give them to you. Why - because......
I CAN SAY WITH ALL AUTHORITY THAT YOU HAVE MISREPRESENTED WHAT YOU CLAIM TO DEFEND.

Why, BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO BE AN EMPLOYEE OF THE FIRM THAT PUSHED FOR THE RADIFICATION OF THAT LAW.

You want facts - how about this - do you want to speak to the actual people who did the legal work? Want the docs on how the voting went? I could put my hands on the actual report in less than 5 minutes.

You claim PETA did it? Guess again. They had nothing to do with it.

Do I agree with this law? It is irrelevant. I feel that it is no more my place to tell you what I think than it is appropriate to be told how to think. But to suggest with a flourish that I have no idea what I am talking about????

I can tell you this - and I am sure there will be some clever attempt to refute this. There is no way that you can put your hands on as much info about this subject as I can.

I repeat, these are my own opinions, but the facts I stated are FACTS.

fly
03-11-2005, 11:33 AM
Try to remain rational - I'm not attacking anybody. If you get so upset when your own shoddy thinking is addressed then you should either not think it aloud or do your homework. You are not reading what I wrote, or even following your own arguments. Get a dictionary, look up "minorities", try to distinguish between lawmakers and participants and calm down. You are plain wrong on your "aristocratic" nonsense, and on the majority wishes issue - once again - the legislature is not the hunt.

Good luck and goodbye.

Howie
03-11-2005, 12:09 PM
To be clear - I took offense at you calling Eddie's thinking ignorant.

And to suggest that hound hunting was a sport of the masses was deceptive at best. There is no way that you can back that up with fact, and we both know it.

And this nonsense of "the legislature is not the hunt, and the hunt is not the legislature" or there are no foxes in Parliment. Last time I checked both of our governments ruled over our entire lands, not just the parts we wished them to. Just because you do not feel that your government should have the right to stop the hunt does not make you correct.

If I felt that striper fishing with C4 was good fun, I am guessing that Uncle Sam might want to talk with me. I am not attacking anyone, simply calling into question your "facts".

You said:
These people are not to be underestimated. The same crowd has got fox hunting banned in the UK, where I come from.

The FACT is that you have yet to mention the group that spearheaded the campaign.

So let's leave it at this:

I am sorry if I offended you, but reserve the right to question when anyone's opinion is called "a position of ignorance"

I completely disagree with your ability to define yourself as an arbiter of what is correct and incorrect when you have proven to be anything but.

I could care less what your thoughts about me are.

Telling me I am wrong about the "aristocratic nonsense" and then disengaging without dipping your bucket into the bottomless well of facts that you possess seems a little questionable. To tell me that Blairs ELECTED minority was in favor of banning this type of hunting, but the (let me get exactly what you said, lest I am accused of misunderstanding):

Generally Lords are appointed (made Lords, if you like) by the Government of the day.

So non-elected folks have the ability to overrule a larger group of elected officials. Sounds interesting. Why elect anyone at all?

You also stated:
Regarding commoners and minorities hunting, you seem to be mixing up the House of Lords (a legislative body) with the hunting field (farms, hedges, etc). Lords don't legislate in the wild, and foxes don't roam the House of Lords. If you want to know more about who hunts (hunted) you'll need to do better than jump to erroneous conclusions based on thirty seconds surfing and not reading the question.

A thousand pardons, I thought that a government actually made the laws of the land. My mistake. So let me get this straight - I get fed up while on a hunt. I blow away my hunting partner - BUT THAT'S OK. You see your honor, we were amongst the fields and hedges, therefore you cannot find me guilty. I could have had a more appropriate outlet for my anger, but I just couldn't find a fox in Parliment.

Nobody is going to buy the idea that laws don't apply "on the hunt". Legislators don't rule "on the hunt". Guess again fly, they sure do. If you truly believe that, then I promise you, this discussion will be over. I am pretty sure the laws of England count, irrespective of the presence of foxes.

Mark Cahill
03-11-2005, 12:39 PM
I suggest that everyone calm down and realize we're basically all on the same side of the issue.

I also suggest each of you re-read our posting guidelines, lest you run (further) afoul of them. http://reel-time.com/forum/faq.php?faq=rt_faq_item#faq_posting_faq_item

fly
03-11-2005, 12:41 PM
Your main problem is that you insist on misrepresenting what others say, which leads you to conclude things that they never meant, to say little of sheer invention, and then you get angry about it.

One illustration will suffice "And to suggest that hound hunting was a sport of the masses was deceptive at best."

That is your extrapolation of what I said - not what I actually said AT ALL.

I could go on but I have a feeling I know how this will end, so good luck to you and have a good season.

enough.

haguebrook
03-11-2005, 01:43 PM
The last time I checked, foxes could not be caught with a rod and reel. ;)

Can't we all just get along????

eddie
03-11-2005, 01:43 PM
The hysteria that misinformation and misrepresentation can arouse is a useful pollitical tool but in a democracy, truthful information is critical for everything to work properly. If voters are lied to, the democratic process is negated. Enter spin groups, lobbyists and "single issue fascists" (PETA, NRA, Wise Use, Ocean Conservancy and the countless others that have more or less influence).
On the web, it is hard to know whether some one is well informed, or brainwashed. It is easy to identify the hysterics. It is the sense of hysteria that drew me to this thread initially.

FLY, Did I mis-read your implication that hunting was banned in the UK?

fly
03-11-2005, 02:18 PM
I certainly hope we can all get along! It's one of the great things about fishing.

Eddie - I have no idea if you did or not! Banned it is though!

have a good weekend.

Howie
03-11-2005, 03:03 PM
I agree - cease fire. No offense meant!

Howie
03-11-2005, 03:05 PM
And I think he means that the particular METHOD of hunting has been banned in the UK - Actually Scotland went first a while ago. Hunting in general has NOT been banned.

eddie
03-11-2005, 03:06 PM
This must be a case of two nations separated by a common language
;) : Hunting is most certainly NOT banned in the UK. In fact people can still hunt for foxes with dogs. Now the hunters and not the dog pack, kill the fox. But, you knew that.
"What does this have to do with fishing?", some might wonder.
Hunters and anglers share many concerns. They are a hotly contested segment of the voting population. It wasn't too long ago that two presidential canidates were pretending to be sportsmen, and pretending to care about our issues. It is important for sportmen to be informed voters. Spin and misinformation cloud the issues and help to promote hidden agendas. It's not too hard to smell the BS., but put someone's pantys in a bunch.... --124-3 It can be hard to think clearly. Not hard to do with some well placed propoganda.
So, while pollution, overfishing, development and habitat destruction are quickly eroding our fishing opportunities, many are sidetracked by misinformation..worrying about political extremists with no power. How about the extremists WITH POWER.

SamRiley
03-14-2005, 11:51 AM
Who can ignore the rampant consumption of tofu????

--125-3

Now that is funny !!!!!!

albacized
03-14-2005, 05:25 PM
The last time I checked, foxes could not be caught with a rod and reel. ;)



Have you actually tried?? --127-3-

haguebrook
03-14-2005, 07:50 PM
Yes, but a fly tied to resemble a 7 lb hen is a bit unwieldy to cast! --127-3-

artb
03-15-2005, 05:39 AM
(#$119) I turned on the computer yesterday, and my provider's headlines read PETA in Providence.One in the group dressed as a giant fish, anyone with a trebble hook about the size of an anchor? Instead of veggies I suggest they start eating rocks, just about the only thing that is not alive. Some greenhouses play music to keep the plants happy, what does PETA do when they strangle a carrot, or boil an onion? :-% :-% Have a drink.