Jump to content
  • GUESTS

    If You  want access  to member only forums on FM, You will need to Sign-in or  Sign-Up now .

    This box will disappear once you are signed in as a member.

Peta Comics....


DARK30

Recommended Posts

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"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!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

And you're ripping Republicans in you're post...


No I'm not! I just stated that I disagree with most of what the party has done and should at least be capable of stating why RATHER than just calling names. (I only used the republican party because it came to mind as an example first, I could have just as easily chose some other group I disagree with...) I just don't think running around saying everyone who doesn't agree with hunting and fishing is psycho will get sportsmen ANYWHERE! Most people think the Nuge is no less goofy than PETA. I just figured that you got 3 choices...you can tell people WHY being a sportsman isn't evil, you can say nothing, or you can froth at the mouth and hurl verbal coconuts. I see you've made your choice, Hooked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, it's getting pretty weird in here. Ummmm. I think I'll go & sort out my tackle so I can go catch (hurt in PETA's eyes) some fish & maybe even eat a few of them. If you look at the comic, it's ridiculous! Way to try to brainwash some future hunter/fisherpeople! It's about as bad as a vegetarian wearing a pair of leather Doc Martins.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, it's weird, if reasoned discussion supported by evidence is weird. Seems quite clear to me. If you huff around and make the usual "let's kill something" jokes, you'll satisfy those already convinced (the folks here, including Bucket and myself) but you won't advance your cause at all.

You'll probably have a chance at some point to have a real conversation with one of these people, face to face. You could offer to put 9mm holes in them or point out that leather shoes makes them a hypocrite--in other words, yield to the most basic impulse and make the conflict stays the same or gets worse. You could ignore them, which really pizzes them off, since like all fringe groups all they really can do is annoy the vast majority of people in this country who hunt or who accept it. Or you could make reasonable arguments and take the high road--Bucket's suggestion. I don't know about you, but I was taught that it was proper and patriotic to leave things better than you found them, and I think a moderate conversation is better than a urination match.

ice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Your Responses - Share & Have Fun :)

    • Brianf.
      No, that wasn't me.  I drive a 621 Ranger. 
    • CigarGuy
      So, that was you in the camo lund? I'm bummed, I have to head back to the cities tomorrow for a few days, then back up for at least a few weeks. Got the dock in and fired up to get out chasing some crappies till opener!
    • LakeofthewoodsMN
      On the south end...   Lots of ice on the main basin, but it is definitely deteriorating.  Some anglers have been fishing the open water at the mouth of the Rainy River in front of the Lighthouse Gap.  The rest of the basin is still iced over. Pike enthusiasts caught some big pike earlier last week tip up fishing in pre-spawn areas adjacent to traditional spawning areas.  8 - 14' of water using tip ups with live suckers or dead bait such as smelt and herring has been the ticket.  Ice fishing for all practical purposes is done for the year. The focus for the basin moving forward will be pike transitioning into back bays to spawn,  This is open water fishing and an opportunity available as the pike season is open year round on Lake of the Woods. The limit is 3 pike per day with one being able to be more than 40 inches. All fish 30 - 40 inches must be released. With both the ice fishing and spring fishing on the Rainy River being so good, many are looking forward to the MN Fishing Opener on Saturday, May 11th.  It should be epic. On the Rainy River...  An absolutely incredible week of walleye and sturgeon fishing on the Rain Rainy River.     Walleye anglers, as a rule, caught good numbers of fish and lots of big fish.  This spring was one for the books.   To follow that up, the sturgeon season is currently underway and although every day can be different, many boats have caught 30 - 40 sturgeon in a day!  We have heard of fish measuring into the low 70 inch range.  Lots in the 60 - 70 inch range as well.   The sturgeon season continues through May 15th and resumes again July 1st.   Oct 1 - April 23, Catch and Release April 24 - May 7, Harvest Season May 8 - May 15, Catch and Release May 16 - June 30, Sturgeon Fishing Closed July 1 - Sep 30, Harvest Season If you fish during the sturgeon harvest season and you want to keep a sturgeon, you must purchase a sturgeon tag for $5 prior to fishing.    One sturgeon per calendar year (45 - 50" inclusive, or over 75"). Most sturgeon anglers are either a glob of crawlers or a combo of crawlers and frozen emerald shiners on a sturgeon rig, which is an 18" leader with a 4/0 circle hook combined with a no roll sinker.  Local bait shops have all of the gear and bait. Up at the NW Angle...  Open water is continuing to expand in areas with current.  The sight of open water simply is wetting the pallet of those eager for the MN Fishing Opener on May 11th.   A few locals were on the ice this week, targeting pike.  Some big slimers were iced along with some muskies as well.  If you like fishing for predators, LOW is healthy!  
    • Brianf.
      Early bird gets the worm some say...   I have it on good authority that this very special angler caught no walleyes or muskies and that any panfish caught were released unharmed.        
    • smurfy
      got mine done........for the cabin.....ready for summer festivities!!!!!!   there was still frost in the ground...........but good gawd are the lakes low!!!!!
    • CigarGuy
      Just 1, 50" muskie🫣
    • SkunkedAgain
      How many walleye were on the stringer on their way out??? 
    • CigarGuy
      Saw the first boat of the year yesterday, heading towards Black Bay 
    • SkunkedAgain
      All of the webcams appear to be ice-free except for shore ice. It looks like you could navigate most of the way on Vermilion at this point. Happy boating everyone.
    • Dash 1
      I'm the same on honey do lists. I seem to feel better doing my list than my wife's list, even though they my be similar. 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.