Guests - If You want access to member only forums on FM. You will gain access only when you Sign-in or Sign-Up on Fishing Minnesota.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

  • Announcements

    • Rick

      Members Only Fluid Forum View   08/08/2017

      Fluid forum view allows members only to get right to the meat of this community; the topics. You can toggle between your preferred forum view just below to the left on the main forum entrance. You will see three icons. Try them out and see what you prefer.   Fluid view allows you, if you are a signed up member, to see the newest topic posts in either all forums (select none or all) or in just your favorite forums (select the ones you want to see when you come to Fishing Minnesota). It keeps and in real time with respect to Topic posts and lets YOU SELECT YOUR FAVORITE FORUMS. It can make things fun and easy. This is especially true for less experienced visitors raised on social media. If you, as a members want more specific topics, you can even select a single forum to view. Let us take a look at fluid view in action. We will then break it down and explain how it works in more detail.   The video shows the topic list and the forum filter box. As you can see, it is easy to change the topic list by changing the selected forums. This view replaces the traditional list of categories and forums.   Of course, members only can change the view to better suit your way of browsing.   You will notice a “grid” option. We have moved the grid forum theme setting into the main forum settings. This makes it an option for members only to choose. This screenshot also shows the removal of the forum breadcrumb in fluid view mode. Fluid view remembers your last forum selection so you don’t lose your place when you go back to the listing. The benefit of this feature is easy to see. It removes a potential barrier of entry for members only. It puts the spotlight on topics themselves, and not the hierarchical forum structure. You as a member will enjoy viewing many forums at once and switching between them without leaving the page. We hope that fluid view, the new functionality is an asset that you enjoy .
Sign in to follow this  
DARK30

Peta Comics....

Recommended Posts

BK19

hey i'm a member of PETA

People (who)

Eat

Tasty

Animals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mike89

I agree with BK19!!!! they taste so good!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.T. Bucket

Funny you were browsing the PETA website in the first place... grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WxGuy

I hope they keep this up! The more absurd they get, the more people they drive away from their cause. They're only alienating themselves through crud like this...

Unfortunately, every time something like this is posted in any sort of forum, it only gives them more press, and that is exactly that they were hoping for...even if it's negative.

Getting fired up over something like this is a waste of energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DARK30

I was browsing another fishing site from down south and noticed the comic thing. I know this peta issue keeps popping up from time to time but I just couldn't resist.

Theres a group of fisherman that have an annual "PETA" fishing tournament on the water right in front of the Norfolk, VA. PETA Corp office building followed by a BBQ cook out and tail gate party. I'd love to fish that one grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
icehousebob

Dark, after looking at that comic, I have SEEN THE LIGHT!! From now on, I will only eat really ugly animals that die from natural causes. And I will not torture fish with fish hooks. I will harvest them humanely, with explosives, so they won't feel pain. And I will start a movement to save our friends, the vegetables. I don't want my five kids hating and fearing me. The youngest is only twenty three. grin.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooked On a Feeling

It's funny how a group like peta spends so much time and energy defending animals, when there is human suffering going on all around us. I'm willing to bet the majority of peta supports a women's right to choose (Abortion). Hypocrits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FOOT

Hooked, I think you are absolutely correct. I have won every discussion I've ever gotten into about abortion when I let the other person hang themselves using an "animal rights" issue.

How people can see everything wrong in hunting and fishing because the animal/fish has feelings and then turn around and say there is nothing wrong in killing an unborn child is beyound me. And this has NOTHING to do with any religion. It has everything to do MURDER.

I apologize for getting off on a rank about abortion on a fishing forum, I just couldn't help myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ice9

Those Petans are morons, no doubt. Their membership is stagnant, their various splinter groups hate each other more than they hate us, their propaganda is downright stupid, their donations are radioactive in political circles. It is entertaining to imagine that they are a threat or that we have to fight back, but we don't. Ignore them. They hate that.

ice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ray Esboldt

"Your Daddy kills animals."

In my house, so does Mommy.

Here's a good one for the PETA pukes. One of my 3rd grade daughter's Thanksgiving sketches was Daddy plucking a turkey in the backyard from this spring. There's a waiting line for the killing in my house. smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Deitz Dittrich

Quote:

There's a waiting line for the killing in my house.


OMG ray.. I had pop come out my nose ***WINDEX***[/].. that is awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooked On a Feeling

"Vegetarians are cool. All I eat are vegetarians-except for the occasional mountain lion steak."

Ted Nugent

"...My deer were put here on Earth. God even said, 'Hey Ted whack 'em. He said this, right in the Bible, Genesis, 'Dear Ted, whack me a buck'..."

Ted Nugent

"If the (Contact US Regarding This Word) hate you, it proves you're not one of them."

Ted Nugent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wish2Fish

So how about those arrogant turds targeting our kids with language intended to hurt THEM? I'd like to respond with booklets hand-delivered to their kids saying "your daddy is a social misfit; until he pulls his head out of his bottom, you should change your last name so nobody knows you're related to him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.T. Bucket

I'm with you Ice, these guys have no influence anywhere. They're just exercising their 1st amendment rights in an irritating and meaningless way, kind of like when the Ku Klux Klan goes on Springer.

I do think we're better off ignoring them than what is going on here. All of those "People Eating Tasty Animals" and "There's a place for all God's creatures..." T-shirts and bumper stickers really just make hunters and fishermen look like jerks that think the death part of being a sportsman is the primary focus, rather than the cultural, aesthetic, and conservation aspects, and also like hunters think animals being killed is somehow humorous. That kind of stuff doesn't help sportsmen in the eyes of the people perhaps most important to retaining sportsman's rights...the non-hunting but also non-PETA public...basically the majority of voters and a growing demographic in many areas. We should take the high road and let the PETA folks look like the unreasonable ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cliff Wagenbach

I don't think that it is smart to think that these nuts have no influence! There are plenty more where they came from. frown.gif And lots of them are more than happy to spend their money if it will get them their 15 minutes of fame!

These comics are nothing but another form of PORNO that they are trying to distribute to our kids! mad.gif

Cliff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
efgh

WE, as a whole are falling into P.E.T.A. trap of disccussing them on this foram, they want their views to be on the front burner, we are doing what they want us to do by disccusing their views. crazy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooked On a Feeling

I disagree efgh, It's like the old WWII nazi propaganda machine, and they admitted, if you tell a lie over and over long enough people soon believe I'ts true. I believe in confronting them and exposing their nonsene.

Hooked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fishin Beast

I wanna find out where to get that hat wink.gif and that skull hook looks like it could really put some bass in the boat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
McGurk

Along these lines, I drove by the Mall of America on Friday only to see protesters all geared up holding up anti-fur signs and posters of skinned animals for all of us to see. I know I saw leather shoes and shoe brands that also use leather. Thanks, thanks alot you hypocrites. McGurk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bobb-o

"Ask your mommy how many dead animals she killed to make her fur clothes." who cares if it is already dead, not only are they nutjobs, they dont know how to write either!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.T. Bucket

Well, if we're going to discuss PETA, we should be productive about it. We all have groups that we vehemently disagree with, right? I disagree with nearly everything the republicans do. It wouldn't get me far to just rail about how nuts they are and never be able to articulate WHY I don't like their ideas. To someone else hearing me, they would either have to accept me as an authority (unlikely) or assume that I don't know what I'm talking about. It seems funny that on the "Outdoor Issues" forum, people are able to argue and banter about nearly any subject, but when PETA comes up, nobody can offer a clear refutation of their agenda...and it's not because it's difficult to do, it's just easier to name call. If we care about these things, we should be able to tell people why fishing and hunting are not morally repugnant in this day and age where all of our food could come in supplement form if we really wanted it to.

If you were never raised around hunting or fishing, it's not that far-fetched to believe that people don't need to harvest wild animals, therefore it would be wrong to do it for fun. Problem is, it's a deeper discussion than that.

Here is an article (on hunting, but applies to fishing) I found by Lark Ritchie and Brian Douglas Ritchie that says it pretty nicely:

(Unfortunately, copy & paste using the quote feature comes out barely readable at best.)

Quote:

As a Hunter, a hunting guide and a status Native American (read Cree Indian, Born, Chapleau, Ontario, Canada), I have been repeatedly challenged by the moral and ethical questions concerning hunting. Over some 40 years, I continue to arrive at a conclusion that hunting (and providing hunts for others) is a morally and ethically acceptable practice. Although a personal view, it is one I ask you to consider.

A clear argument for or against any issue requires definition of terms and hunting, as defined in the dictionary, means to pursue game with the intent of capturing or killing. I add a further refinement; that of killing as an act of predation; as a means to food.

This refined definition makes it clear that we are concerned with hunting to kill; an act of predation, in which the game is consumed. While hunting to capture an animal may be another question for the moralists, it is distinctly set apart from the pursuit of game ending in death. Thus I reformulate the question: "Is it morally acceptable to hunt and kill an animal as an act of predation?". I see three major perspectives; the issue of rights, the social, and the vegetarian arguments.

The animal rights activist and anti-hunter offer us at least these three challenges as hunters. Each are briefly considered .

One argument touted is that when hunters kill an animal, they violate its right to life. This statement is logically and legally faulty.

The concept of rights is a legal principle, and in that legal sense, is not presently recognized for all creatures. Moreover, rights are an amorphous human concept developed within a culture and differ considerably, depending on the culture and society, and only defined and upheld within the laws and social conventions of a particular society.

When we leave this legal view, we enter an arena governed by personal, emotional and philosophical complications where no commonly accepted conventions dictate how we act or what is right. To use the concept of rights when speaking of animals means we must have laws in place under which we can make judgements. Without those laws we must face our own moral structures, and those of others.

These legal, moral and philosophical details are complex, and a small example demonstrates the underlying reasoning.

When a wolf stalks and kills a rabbit, it is senseless to say that the wolf has violated the rabbit's right to life and freedom. In the wilderness there are no immoral acts or violation of rights since all events are by definition "natural". We can accept that in this event, there is no question of rights, other than a personal view. The event may be considered acceptable in that death is a part of natural wilderness life. Therefore the death of an animal caused by a hunter can only be examined in the human social or personal context.

My conclusion? In the present day, and in this country, legal rights are not granted to animals, and hence there is no legal argument for, or against taking the life of an animal, other than those laws and regulations governing hunting and humane practices. This may not be agreeable to some, but our system of laws are how we define our exact ways and behaviours. Without a law, we have to act within our own personal moral scope. And in hunting, we must bring ourselves to that moral mirror. Another challenge to the hunter is "An entire international industry is designed to raise domestic animals for consumption. You don't need to hunt."

This statement skirts the moral issue of killing and animal death and is in effect, illogical when discussing predatory hunting. It actually accepts the death of animals, and makes a distinction only between domestic animals and wilderness animals.

Furthermore, it embeds a general and socially accepted assumption within; we are omnivores and by nature, part of our natural diet is the meat from animals, and eating meat is acceptable, and therefore killing of an animal is acceptable.

My conclusion? If the killing of a domestic chicken is considered acceptable, then we must also accept the killing of a bear , moose, grouse or trout as acceptable. With that acceptance, we are left to the present laws and to our personal choices and morals.What truely matters in the moral and ethical sense, is motive and attitude.

A third challenge we hear today is the argument that we should not eat meat. To personally oppose the killing any animal for consumption, one must profess himself a vegetarian, and when one is, then, and only then, is one remotely justified to reject animal death by himself or others. However, the ratio of vegetarian (or herbivore) human beings to non-vegetarians in our population is quite low, and although a minority has the right to an opinion and way of life, reciprocally, we have the right to hold our own opinions and ways of life. The debate in this area will no doubt continue, until resolved by an act of legislation.

My conclusion? Realistically, one would have to accept that man is, either divinely, naturally or biologically designed to eat meat, as well as plants. Again we enter morals and ethics.

Summarizing; legally, animals are viewed differently when we speak of rights; objectively, there is no difference between a death of a domestic or wild death; and socially, the majority of us accept the consumption of animals as food is acceptable. It renders to moral and ethical issues.

The argument defending hunting and more generally, animal death, can be stated in one sentence. "People are naturally omnivorous and therefore it is natural for people to kill animals for consumption." Further, the act of predation (hunting) is no more than a variation on the more efficient practice of animal husbandry and subsequent killing for human consumption.

While this argument is simply stated, the moral implications are far reaching. The fact that man is no longer considers himself apart from nature seriously complicates the matter.

While it is not immoral for a wolf to kill the rabbit, even if it is the last one of the species, I consider it immoral for a hunter to knowingly threaten the sustainability of, or decimate a species.

Because we are rational beings, we can make a free and informed choice to kill or not kill the rabbit, where the wolf simply acts on instinct.

This ability to rationalize places a personal restriction and responsibility on the hunter to not knowingly deplete a species beyond a natural sustainable level. He or she must be an active part of a responsible resource management system. This implies that we adhere to high personal principles as well as legislated fish and game laws which, in terms of limits, are designed to maintain natural population levels.

A second restriction in the pro-hunting argument is that we may only kill animals as an act of predation (for food). While this argument does not seemingly condone sport or trophy hunting, it does not necessarily mean that one can't kill without eating the meat personally. In nature, animal mothers (and in the case of wolves, fathers) often kill to provide food for their young. The concept of killing to provide food for another is a natural occurence. A suitable conclusion is that we are justified morally hunt to provide food for others. However, to take more than that due a family would lead me to question the motives of the particuar person.

A third restriction to the argument deals with motive. It is important that the motive of the hunt or the kill be an internal one. I maintain that there are two types of people who kill wilderness animals. I class them as internally motivated hunters and externally motivated killers. (I have been using these concepts since 1983: others have termed the same as 'intrinsically and extrinsically motivated' - see notes below...)

The basis of the hunting experience for the internally motivated responsible hunter is the realization that he has met the challenges of the wilderness experience; hunting, killing and providing food for himself and others. He may also honour his animal by investing in the costs for a taxidermist to provide a momento of the experience. This in itself is not wrong.

The externally motivated killer, on the other hand, assumes that he is recognized more highly by others because of what he has done, interpreting the act of killing as symbolic of status and prowess. And although very subjective on my part, I do not respect or condone the actions of this type of individual.

There is another sub-class within the externally motivated killers, the most dangerous of all, and these definitely should not be identified as hunters. I classify him or her as unthinking and opportunistic. He or she is the person who has no awareness of, or respect for the animal pursued. This is the person who considers the case of two-four as part of essential hunting equipment, the person who risks the 200 yard shot, or the person who utters such terrible unfeeling words such as "that sucker" when recounting the experience. I personally do not respect such a person. The animal deserves to be honoured. As with the family dog who is humanely put down, or as with the chicken destined for the table, this should be done quickly, with respect, and with a minimum of pain. To achieve this objective, there is no moral argument for why an efficient tool should not be used to dispatch the animal. In fact, it is a legal requirement and strictly defined in our fish and game act.

None of these ideas imply that we should not hunt for pleasure, as in the group experience. Hunting arose from natural predation and for many responsible people, is carried on as a tradition. In earlier times, when a hunter killed an animal, there was rejoice because he provided food for his family or tribe. There is, undeniably, a sense of pleasure and personal achievement and fulfilling tradition in such activity.

Therefore, there is a part of hunting which has developed into a social celebration in which one spends time with friends, talking, listening and learning. This is what I feel is the driving force for most true and honest hunters, what serious hunters desire to pass to their children, and is definitely the reason that I still hunt and provide hunting experiences.

There is an experience gained, even without a kill, that is almost beyond description. One realizes it at dusk, sitting around a late night fire, talking with new friends or maybe much later when one returns to regular and routine life. At many points a responsible hunter grows from the experience.

Serious hunters must be able profess these thoughts clearly to make a distiction between themselves, the externally motivated hunter, and the unthinking opportunist who cares little for the game she or he encounters.


My personal favorite is when someone who eats meat says that hunting is wrong. I've run into this a few times, and usually the irony is lost. I had one in-law tell me I should stop hunting after I watched her eat chicken at a barbeque. I mentioned to her that a hunted grouse has a much better life experience than a domestic chicken. She then informed me that she only ate free-ranging animals for humane reasons. I asked her just what she thought game animals were. crazy.gif After not really getting an answer, I told her that she would be standing on slightly firmer ground arguing that hunting was bad if she became a vegetarian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M.T. Bucket

In case you're really curious about what hunting opponents are saying, here is what the Humane Society (in the same ballpark as PETA, but a little more toned down; fewer stunts) website says about hunting:

Quote:

There once was a time when most Americans needed to hunt to put food on the table, but hunting today is a recreational pastime, and worse: waterfowl, pheasant, and dove hunting are no more than shooting at living targets. Some hunting is done solely to acquire trophies or to see who can kill the most; some is no more than shooting tame, confined animals. Brutally inhumane weapons such as the bow and arrow are increasingly used. In all cases, sport hunting inflicts undeniable cruelty—pain, trauma, wounding, and death—on living, sentient creatures. The Humane Society of the United States believes that causing suffering and death is by definition inhumane, regardless of method.

More than 100 million animals are reported killed by hunters each year. That number does not include the millions of animals for which kill figures are not maintained by state wildlife agencies.

The vast majority of species that are hunted—waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, crows, coyotes, etc.—provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.

Hunters have strived for decades to convince the American public that hunting is good for wildlife and good for society, often with arguments that are based on obfuscation and half-truths. They have deliberately focused the debate on deer hunting, for which plausible, but not necessarily true, arguments for subsistence and management can be made. But the holes in their arguments are becoming increasingly apparent, as is the magnitude of their waste, cruelty and destruction. More than that, sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.


It's kind of a shame that this group has to take this position. They actually have some reasonable action issues on their agenda including preserving habitat, endangered species protection, unnecessary animal testing, preventing gratuitous abuse of animals (like dogfights), and educating people on the responsibilities of owning a pet. There really is a lot of actual animal abuse going on out there, and working on those issues is commendable. Unfortunately, equating a guy taking his kid ice fishing in with someone who beats and starves a kennel full of dogs and cats or a company that sprays adhesive in animals' faces to figure out what kind of warning to put on the can doesn't do their organization any favors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hooked On a Feeling

What the heck...what deeper discussion? M.T., I'ts clear PETA is nuts... no more discussions! Period. What planet am I on here? And you're ripping Republicans in you're post, when earlier you say we should be taking "The High Road". What?

Hooked

Hooked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  



  • Posts

    • Rick
      Now is the time to talk to kids about the dangers of thin ice. As temperatures continue to dip below freezing, ice is forming on many lakes, ponds and rivers. But conditions vary across the state.  Minnesota Department of Natural Resources conservation officer Hannah Mishler has already responded to multiple ice rescue calls. “Ice, especially snow covered ice, is extremely deceptive. You can’t see dangerous cracks or the thickness of the ice under the snow,” Mishler said. With many children out of school for holiday breaks, they may look toward the newly formed ice for entertainment. “Teach your children that ice is never 100 percent safe,” cautions Mishler. “If your child is near the ice, you should be near your child.” While adults and children are recreating outdoors, they should always take precautions around any body of water during the cold water season. Lisa Dugan, DNR recreation safety outreach coordinator, advises in addition to checking conditions locally and being prepared with an ice safety kit, anyone recreating on ice should be wearing a life jacket. “A life jacket is the one piece of equipment that increases your odds of not drowning from cold water shock, hypothermia or exhaustion should you fall through the ice.” Ice safety guidelines No ice can ever be considered “safe ice,” but following these guidelines can help minimize the risk: Always wear a life jacket on the ice (except when in a vehicle). When a child is near the ice, an adult should be near the child. Caution children to stay off ponds, streams, and other bodies of water. A thin coating of ice on a pond or lake does not mean it is safe. The minimum ice thickness guidelines for new, clear ice are: 4 inches for ice fishing or other activities on foot. 5-7 inches for a snowmobile or all-terrain vehicle. 8-12 inches for a car or small pickup. 12-15 inches for a medium truck. Double these minimums for white or ice covered with heavy snow. For more information, visit mndnr.gov/icesafety and mndnr.gov/boatingsafety. Discuss below - to view set the hook here.
    • Cret Jigs
      Good chance I will be there after 1pm.... thanks for putting this together.   Plan on bringing 4 wheeler. ... and hoping Daughter can make it :-)
    • monstermoose78
      @Cret Jigs
    • Wanderer
      It’s been interesting in Central MN so far.  There are plenty of lakes that have very walkable ice and ice that could hold ATV traffic but also several that stayed mostly to partly open for longer than expected.  Several lakes have both rideable ice and open water as of last weekend. There are only a couple lakes that I’ve been tracking that I would commit to an ATV ride on right now, especially with the new snow cover.  We lost the ability to see what “generation” of ice you were on this week.  On the plus side, we’ve had good ice making conditions all week. Short story: There are lakes that are ready to fish but don’t assume they all are.  Phone ahead to a resort or bait shop to find out about particular lakes if you don’t get the info here.  Buy your bait at the shop that gives you your key info. Be extra cautious this weekend until you’ve proven the ice you want to fish.
    • monstermoose78
      I moved this here as you will get better info
    • BRULEDRIFTER
      As far as I know, never been there.  I know it's great for splake, browns and lakers. 
    • JTeeth
      A return client for a couple years brought fish grips with him... After watching him mangle a couple fish I asked him not to bring them anymore. Big fish need more care when landing in my experience. I hand land most muskies. This helps with not bringing a green (not ready) fish into the boat to hurt itself and the boat. With musky fishing growing in popularity I'm noticing a lot more fish with net scars from green fish. For a young musky angler learn correct technique early. The scars after a 4 fish day are a badge of honor. One of the best gifts I've received for my musky gear is a good pair of wire cutters. I use them to cut hooks in an emergency or out of a poorly hooked fish. Or if you can find it...a jar of musky slime cologne, my wife loves it. Ha! Good luck
    • monstermoose78
      There was 7-10 inches last weekend 
    • ANYFISH2
      I have Hockey travels Saturday, good luck guys.
    • Horseshoe_Don
      Drove out the wheeler on the thickest ice.  Fishing for the first time. Had a solid 7" here.  But 50 yards away only 3".   Don