PETA

What do you think of PETA? and other animal groups. because their is a lot of argument where i live, between hunters and PETA , and I want to see what you think. Sorry if the poll isn't there or dosen't work.

 

I go along with not torturing animals for fun and all that. PETA however is a bunch of radical loonies. :roll:

As a hunter, I realize that it is hunters who do far, far more than anyone else for conservation. Most hunters are ethical and law abiding. Unfortunately, like in anything else, there are a few who give hunters a bad name.

 

PETA is an environmental terrorist organization, on the same level as Greenpeace. Through their lies, they damage the same environment to claim to protect.

Christian

 

Who the hell are PETA????

 

http://www.peta.org/

A bunch of no-good vegetarians, who believe that all the evils in the world comes from eating meat. Someone ought to eat them :lol:

Christian

 

people eating tasty animals
they are also in all likelyhood a front for groups like earth first and the animal liberation front. as a hunter i have tried several times to have an intellengent convesation with a peta type and have yet to find one with the smarts to pour piss out of a boot before putting it on. they just trot out the old lies and talk over you. most of them think bambi was a real life story and that all the little fuzzy critters gather in the forest glades to dance and talk. i have always favored sending every peta member a rabid fox to deal with since one of the leadin causes of the recent rabies outbreaks in their opposition to fur and the reduced ammount of trapping because of it.

 

Human behaviour towards other animals is something I haven't really made up my mind about, but if PETA is anything like Greenpeace then they're doing things the wrong way.

I'm definitely against abuse of animals for experimenting (safe or not) and abuse of wild animals for hunting for pleasure. I am also violently against the use of animal fur for human clothing, for example, in which an animal is killed and discarded because humans "need" only a piece of it. I am strongly opposed to fishing in general and sweeping net fishing specifically; if we are unable to feed the human world population without sea food, then so be it, because this is not our ground to interfere with. And then I'm also against any completely uncalled for acts of cruelty that you wouldn't inflict on humans either, since we are but animals among animals. However if activists wish to protest against this they should use legal channels, lobbying, and stating facts (few can stand their ground against clear evidence) instead of obstruction, violence and other acts of pure media playing.

 

I don't care about fishing as long as they don't fish to much, for the rest I totally agree with you Roel.

 

i have a guy like that in my class, its impossible to have a conversation with him n he holds a grudge against me because im gettin an air rifle that me n my dad are going to hunt rabbits with (2 eat we dnt waste wot we kill)

 

PETA is like Greenpeace but tacky. They have been trying to get the dairy industry shutdown because it uses cows for milking. Rudy Giulliani done a poster ad for milk and the catch phrase "Got Milk". Well, PETA being the imbeciles that they are, made a similar poster ad of Rudy G. but with "Got Cancer", Rudy G. had a bout with cancer once. Totally tacky.

They have also been known to hammer steel spikes into trees where loggers are working so the chainsaw will break and possibly injure the operator.

Dave;
Rabbit is one of my favorite meals. I like to slow cook it over a fire or on a grill. Add some creole seasoning and brown rice. Damn, I'm getting hungry.

 

Wild fasan and deer are not to be forgotten either.

Maybe you should send pictures of your thophees to PETA? :lol:

Christian

 

oh boy, you really want ot stir a wasp's nest, is in it?

 

:lol:

 

What about whales ? I ate a lot of whale when I was a kid. It´s the healthiest kind of meat you can get, no colestherol, and it taste great as well. But thanks to international pressure we had to reduce whaling to a minimum. You can still get whale meat, but it´s harder to find and a lot more expensive.

 

I mostly have to agree with Roel on this one.
I dont mind people holding animals for milk, meat, leather and such if the animal has a decent life and is not for 90% wasted because people only need the fur or such.
As for hunting wild animals, as long as they are not endangered, rare, protected by law, or any thing like that I dont mind it much as long as its a swift, clean kill and again the animal is not wasted.
However I dont understand JCalhouns point that a hunter would help in conserving wildlife, unless you're hunting animals that are a plague such a rats in barn or introduced species like the cane toad (which form his replies doesnt seem to be the case)
As for the whales Skua; if whaling isnt reduced to a minimum (or preferably brought back to zero) whale meat would have even harder to find and more expensive then it already is, it would become a rarity to buy for the rich to brag about owning some and never to be eaten because they would be extinct... consider that.

 

JCalhoun has a valid point. Humans are as much part of the ecological system as any animal, and if we completely stop hunting certain animals it will simply create an unbalance in the ecological system. The same will of course happen if humans hunt too much.

The reduction of whaling has created an unbalance in the North Sea. Whales eat plankton. Too many whales eat too much plankton which creates an unbalance, other species which also feed on plankton will starve. We should of course not hunt whale species which are threatened by extinction, but those species hunted today are not threatened as such. We need to increase whaling to restore the balance of nature.

 

I'm always interested by the 'us humans need to regulate the wildlife of the world to stop an imbalance'.
How on earth did the world manage before humans arrived? :roll:
If there are too many prey, the predators increase. If there is not enough prey, the predators decrease. It is a self-monitoring cycle.

Or was, until we messed it up.

Take Deer. In Britain, we had (and still have) wild deer. But now, they have no predators here any more. The largest non-human carnivore in the UK is the badger. So they need culling, to prevent them eating everything green everywhere.

 

In most nature reservations, each year a number of animals are shot to keep down population. This is the only way to prevent all the animals in the area from dieing.
Usually, nature will adjust itself, but when put onder administration the borders has to be set up. If the number of meat-eating animals grows too large, they will eat all other animals and then die when no more food is left. If the number of plant-eating animals grows too large, they will east all the plants, and then die, and then the meat-eating animals will die.

Here in Denmark, east fall, the audience can watch as some of the deers shot in the nature parks are skinned and gutted, and can then buy deer meat and fur. It is very popular amongst scool classes, and is a good way to let the public know, that meat doesn't grow out of plastic trays.

I read a few days ago, that the amount of elefants has grown to large in some reservation, and they'll now shoot 500 or so. The problem for them is, that it is illegal to sell elefant products in most countries, so these animals will most likely have to lay in the sun and rot away, even though they an elefant could feed a village for a week. All thanks to eco-terrorists like PETA and Greenpeace.

Christian

 

Yes, I am aware that it is neccessary in most cases - as in my example.
Do not worry, I am not a lab-smashing Greenpeace freak.
Or even a 'aww, what cute bunnies, don't you just love Watership Down' kinda dreamer.

A question on animal testing:

Some products do need to be tested, to see if they are harmful.
Currently, most early testing is done on animals. Yes, it is a little hit & miss (penecillin, I think, is lethal to some rodents), but overall is a useful indication.
So, if we never test on animals, what do we test on?
Greenpeace/PETA supporters? People who smash up testing labs / issue death threats to the staff? (this gets my vote) Criminals? Volunteers? Who?

 

We are the top predators. Can we allow humans to go without food to restore the balance 'naturally' ?

I´ll admit that the balance I´m talking about is an artificial one, and in the interest of humans primarily. But without this 'artificial' balance species would simply perish, as thousands of species have done before man existed ( that is how the world managed before humans arrived ).