We noticed a very
interesting little note in the Outdoor section of the Sunday Oklahoman. It came
under the heading of Parting Shots. We thought this to be unusaul since seldom
if ever have we gotten any positive output from the Oklahoman.
PARTING SHOTS
I really wish someone would explain to me why when a
falcon (a bird) kills a duck another (bird) that it is a noble sport, but if a
fighting rooster kills another fighting rooster that that is barbaric.
The hypocrisy of that statement just dumbfounds me. I'm
not a chicken fighter advocate. I've only been to two chicken fights my whole
life.
It just seems that the cockfighters in this state are owed a
fair explanation of why owning one deadly bird gets you a nice article in the
paper while owning another one could land you in
prison.
Mark Woods
Courtesy OGBA
News
.........They are the same groups who
attend Animal Rights Conferences and similarly plan to eliminate your pets and
any use of animals from circuses to rodeos.........
Bear Baiting (Maine)
Letter to papersA
LETTER TO MAINERS WHO VOTE
As a Virginian who has visited your
great state on several occasions, I am moved to write you because you are being
asked to eliminate bear baiting. Your response to this vote will have
repercussions far beyond your borders and it may increase the conflicts between
bears and people and eventually result in disruptions in the justly famous bear
and other wildlife populations of Maine. I say this as a retired wildlife
biologist and wildlife law enforcement officer. For over thirty years I worked
for the US Fish and Wildlife Service and a state (Utah) Fish and Game
Department. My last eight years were spent largely fighting those who are asking
you to eliminate bear baiting.
You should resist the arguments to
eliminate bear baiting for three very good reasons.
First, bear
populations must be thinned and distributed annually to maintain the bear
habitat, the bear population, and the wildlife that are impacted by bears. They
must also be thinned in areas of human residences and activities such as
beekeeping. The use of hunting seasons to achieve these ends costs the state
nothing, generates funds for the state to manage bears and other wildlife, and
generates jobs and revenue for rural communities and businesses from cafes and
motels to taxidermists and outdoor shops and gun stores.
Second, bear
baiting is the most CONSISTENT and EFFICIENT method of harvesting bears. Rain or
snow, warm weather or cold, leaves on or down; no other method offers the
ability to respect private property, locate bait stations where kills are
desired, and finely manage (through quick reporting) the harvest by region or
area. Dogs are never universally available and blundering into a bear is a hit
or miss deal greatly impacted by snow, rain, foliage, and a host of other
factors that vary widely and can therefore result in overkills and underkills
(usually the latter.)
Third, and perhaps most important, bear baiting is
the most HUMANE and SPECIFIC method of harvesting bears. In no other method can
the hunter be completely relaxed (assuring a steady shot); look carefully at the
bear and decide if it is old or young or what he wants to shoot; and, most
important of all, ABLE TO PLACE A SHOT THAT CAN KILL INSTANTLY.
You are
being asked to enact the animal rights agenda. If you swallow the nonsense about
"fairness" you are biting on a red herring. The name of the game is managing the
bears. By making it a "sport" and assuring the most CONSISTENT, EFFICIENT, and
HUMANE method while generating management money and rural income you are
preserving an American tradition and a healthy environment for all Mainers.
If you vote out bear baiting today, in a year or two it will be a ballot
initiative to eliminate bear hunting, then moose hunting, then bird hunting,
then fishing, etc. Take it from one who knows. Those last eight years I
mentioned were spent saving trapping and the American fur industry from European
Union bureaucrats bent on destroying them. Those bureaucrats were being bribed
and lobbied by the same groups enacting this anti-hunting agenda today. The same
lobbyists who got California to treat cougars like pagan gods are the same ones
in the hallways of Brussels whispering to European bureaucrats and they are the
same ones taking UN delegates to dinner to get them to stop hunting in Africa,
management of marine species, and any commerce of wild plants or wildlife. They
are the same groups who attend Animal Rights Conferences and similarly plan to
eliminate your pets and any use of animals from circuses to rodeos.
Don't legitimize what they are doing. Many of us are looking to you for
a common sense response to this pernicious agenda. Don't let us down and don't
let down the generations of future Mainers who want to know the Maine you have
known and loved.
Jim Beers
1 February
2004
Source http://www.allianceforamerica.org/bb/viewtopic.php?t=1504&sid=3a0feb30e407225b4c060470fed8c39f
PETA And Terrorism: The Real Deal
The Center for Consumer Freedom butted heads
with a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) spokesman
yesterday on the Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto." Combining
obfuscation, denial, and half-truths, PETA desperately tried to defend its
record of supporting terrorism and terrorists. Read on for some of the
highlights -- and once you're through, sign our petition to
yank PETA's tax exempt status.
After we mentioned PETA's $70,000-plus gift to dedicated arsonist Rodney Coronado,
Cavuto directed this question to PETA:
This Rodney Coronado guy, I don't know much about him -- I just
need to know this, because this is a big deal. If he was found guilty of
blowing up a facility, and spent time for doing that, would you continue to
fund him?
To which PETA responded:
Absolutely not. If he needs legal fees before he's been convicted
of a crime, then we'll consider helping him out. We do not fund illegal
activities. That's a simple, straight fact.
After PETA's remarks about Coronado's right to legal counsel, Cavuto chimed
in: "This is a guy who blew up a facility. Why would you even countenance
[funding him]?" With the metaphorical noose tightening, PETA's talking head
replied: "At the time he was innocent, and everybody knows people are innocent
until proven guilty."
While that may be true in a court of law, PETA certainly knew Coronado had in
fact been planning to burn down a Michigan State University research lab. In
Coronado's official "sentencing memorandum," U.S. Attorney Michael Dettmer wrote
that PETA president and co-founder Ingrid Newkirk arranged ahead
of time to have Coronado send her a pair of FedEx packages from Michigan --
one on the day before he burned the lab down, and the other shortly afterward.
"Significantly," wrote Dettmer, "Newkirk had arranged to have the package[s] delivered to her days
before the MSU arson occurred." (Emphasis in the original)
There's more yet. After we noted that PETA's Bruce
Friedrich "stood up in front of a public audience and advocated people going
out and blowing up restaurants and blowing up medical laboratories," PETA's rep
retorted: "That's not what he said. What Bruce said was that he wished some
places would burn down, that are hideously abusing animals." Just to keep the
record clear, here are Friedrich's actual words:
If we really believe that animals have the same right to be free
from pain and suffering at our hands, then, of course we're going to be, as a
movement, blowing things up and smashing windows ... I think it's a great way
to bring about animal liberation ... I think it would be great if all of the
fast-food outlets, slaughterhouses, these laboratories, and the banks that
fund them exploded tomorrow. I think it's perfectly appropriate for people to
take bricks and toss them through the windows ... Hallelujah to the people who
are willing to do it. [click here to listen]
PETA went on to insist that in 2001, the year Friedrich lionized arsonists,
PETA "gave $200,000 to humane societies and SPCAs for their local work ... All
of our finances are detailed in our annual report which people can check out at
PETA.org." Well, we looked at
PETA's webiste, and there's no way to verify this claim. On
documents that PETA files with the IRS, the group listed less than $8,000 in
gifts to humane societies and SPCAs during 2001. In that same year, they gave
$5,000 to Animal Liberation Front's militant
Josh
Harper and $1,500 to the Earth Liberation Front. Either either misled Fox
News viewers or the IRS. Here's one final exchange between host Neil Cavuto and
PETA, which speaks for itself:
CAVUTO: Where do you draw a line between [raising animals for
food] and animals that are used in research, for either cancer or multiple
sclerosis or things like that?
PETA: The fact is that none of this research is necessary.
CAVUTO: How do you know, are you a doctor?
PETA: I'm not a doctor, no.
CAVUTO: How do you know?
PETA: We have been researching cancer for decades, using animal
experiments. Do we have a cure for cancer? Of course we don't.
CAVUTO: Do we have treatments for cancer? Of course we do.
PETA: But in the 21st century, don't we have technologies that can get us
past this? There's is no need to be slicing these animals open --
CAVUTO: Dan, would you be open to trying some of these experimental drugs
on a rat before your mom?
PETA: It doesn't work like that, Neil. It is not a fair comparison. The
fact is --
CAVUTO: It would be for me, Dan. I'd like to try it out on a rat before
giving it to a loved one.