"Make a Wish" pays for childs wish to KILL Animals !!!!!!!
mrg...@htp.net
"Make a Wish Foundation" PAYS for childs wish to-
take a safarri to Africa and KILL a Bear for fun !!!!!!!
PLEASE read this and call their toll free 800 number ( 800-332-9474
)and express YOUR dissatisfaction with their decision to grant this child a
wish to KILL a live BEAR before the child himself dies.
The Associated Press wire service confirmed yesterday the the
international organization "Make a Wish Foundation" based in Arizona, USA
has chosen to grant a dieing childs wish to go on a safarri and KILL A LIVE
BEAR. The organization plans to pay for this child to travel to Africa,
hotel, guns and ammo. The un-named child will be led to a spot in which "a
kill is assured".
What kind of message is this organization who is funded strictly
through charitable donations sending?????
It's OK to KILL innocent animals at a whim ????
PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND MY VIEW-
-I am VERY sorry that this child is terminally ill !!
-Granting a POSITIVE wish is WONDERFUL !!
-Killing this animal will obviously not provide this child food- or
clothing- Just FUN !!!!
-All it will do is take the innocent bear
to the grave !!!!
-If the child is going to die must he TAKE an innocent
animal with him ????
-It is VERY WRONG to condone the killing of animals and how can they
expect further $$$$ support from us the public after spending
our donated money to KILL ANIMALS ????
PLEASE CALL their (toll free 800 number) and tell of your feelings
toward this wish they choose to grant. Together we can STOP this senseless
MURDER !!!!
"Make A Wish Foundation"
800-332-9474
Susan Taft
mrg...@htp.net wrote:
>
I have also heard about this in the UK via a national radio station.
I only hope he dies before he gets there. Maybe there is some justice
in this world - a kid with this mentality does not deserve to live.
Flame me if you want but I can't see any justification in taking an
endangered species life.
Elizabeth Davies
Dying child or not, allowing/bankrolling this is disgusting and absurd. I
will phone "Make A Wish" to express my outrage.
robert a. moeser
In article <4n61qv$17...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com>, UAL...@prodigy.com
(Elizabeth Davies) wrote:
:Dying child or not, allowing/bankrolling this is disgusting and absurd. I
:will phone "Make A Wish" to express my outrage.
me too.
> "Make A Wish Foundation"
> 800-332-9474
also, i found them on the WWW using "make a wish" as a search key for
the webcrawler. i found this list of corporate sponsors.
i am going to email at least those companies that begin with "R" or
"A" or "M", my initials. if you have a moment or two, why not email
a select company or two yourself?
-- rob
p.s. obCats: lennie agrees, this stinks.
Advance Auto Parts
Allstate Insurance Company
America West Airlines
American Airlines
Anheuser-Busch Foundation
Best Buy Company, Inc.
Blue Angels
BoRics Haircare
Broadway Stores, Inc.
Chief Auto Parts Inc.
Computer Pro
Continental Airlines
Discover Card
Gillette Corporation
Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.
HLC-Internet
Holiday Rambler
J.E. and Z.B. Butler Foundation
Kimberly-Clark Corp. / Lucky Stores
Knott's Berry Farm
La Quinta Inns, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
Million Dollar Round Table Foundation
Nissan North America, Inc.
Northwest Airlines
Premier Cruise Lines
The Richard E. Jacobs Group
Saturn Corporation
Sears, Roebuck & Company
Service America Corporation
Sizzler International Inc.
SmithKline Beecham
ToysUs
United Airlines
USA Coaches, Inc.
USAir
Venture Stores, Inc.
The Walt Disney World Company
Wemco, Inc.
World Wrestling Federation
Steve Vaus Productions
John Herold
mrg...@htp.net wrote:
>
> "Make a Wish Foundation" PAYS for childs wish to-
> take a safarri to Africa and KILL a Bear for fun !!!!!!!
>
> PLEASE read this and call their toll free 800 number ( 800-332-9474
>)and express YOUR dissatisfaction with their decision to grant this child a
>wish to KILL a live BEAR before the child himself dies.
>
> The Associated Press wire service confirmed yesterday the the
>international organization "Make a Wish Foundation" based in Arizona, USA
>has chosen to grant a dieing childs wish to go on a safarri and KILL A LIVE
>BEAR. The organization plans to pay for this child to travel to Africa,
>hotel, guns and ammo. The un-named child will be led to a spot in which "a
>kill is assured".
Oh, good Lord, can't we ever get the facts straight in this
newsgroup?!?
First, the child's wish is to hunt and kill a Kodiak bear, in ALASKA
(not Africa). There will be no safarri... geesh.
The AP reported that the Make A Wish Foundation would be fulfilling
the kid's wish, that much is true; and the MAWF acknowledges it.
I've called the MAWF and asked for the FACTS of the matter -- whether
the meat / carcass will be igiven to the natives, etc. Whether the
bear in question might be one destined for desbtuction already.
Whether this will be part of a legal hunt, or what.
I find it rather hard to belive that MAWF would take on a project like
this with so much public relations disater potential without covering
these bases.
Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
-John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditonal Siamese), Baltimore MD
BRADLEY BLECK
Post their phone number!
Rachel
D&P Gubanc
[some snipped]
>I find it rather hard to belive that MAWF would take on a project like
>this with so much public relations disater potential without covering
>these bases.
>
>Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
>
>
>
>
> -John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditonal Siamese), Baltimore MD
John, I appreciate and commend your trying to remain calm and rational.
Unfortunately, our egotistical assumption that we have the right to
invade dwindling habitat and kill the animals trying to survive there
makes it difficult for me to be other than enraged. The issue, for me,
isn't whether we're talking about a sole expedition or a safari, nor
whether the bear lives in Alaska or in a penthouse overlooking Central
Park. The issue, for me, is that we so discount any lives other than
human lives. It seems to me, by the way, that all of the myriad
supermarkets we've developed on all of what USED to be habitat contain
more than enough meat, wrapped nicely in shrink wrap, to feed the
entire damned universe!!!! Phyllis
Pam Bartlett
In article <4n61qv$17...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com> UAL...@prodigy.com (Elizabeth Davies) writes:
>From: UAL...@prodigy.com (Elizabeth Davies)
>Subject: Re: "Make a Wish" pays for childs wish to KILL Animals !!!!!!!
>Date: 13 May 1996 01:04:31 GMT
>Dying child or not, allowing/bankrolling this is disgusting and absurd. I
>will phone "Make A Wish" to express my outrage.
Me too, I am so disappointed. This has always been one of my favorite
organizations.
Pam
barbara pattist
r...@tiac.net (robert a. moeser) wrote:
>In article <4n61qv$17...@usenetz1.news.prodigy.com>, UAL...@prodigy.com
>(Elizabeth Davies) wrote:
>:Dying child or not, allowing/bankrolling this is disgusting and absurd. I
>:will phone "Make A Wish" to express my outrage.
>me too.
>-- rob
Thanks, rob, I shall.
Here is the URL
http://www.wish.org/index.html
There's now a message that the sponsors page is under construction.
Might we hope that a lot are dropping out!
Here is the chairman's statement.
KODIAK BEAR STATEMENT
"Make-A-Wish Foundation grants wishes to children up to 18 years of
age who have life-threatening illnesses. Our wishes are limited only
by the child's imagination, and often reflect the activities and way
of life to which the child is accustomed.
The wish of a Minnesota boy to hunt Kodiak bear in Alaska has been
approved by the Board of Directors of our Minnesota Chapter. It is the
sincere wish of the youngster and reflects a lifelong involvement in
family hunting and fishing trips.
We are aware that the wish has resulted in debate, both pro and con.
We respect the rights of all parties to express their own values and
opinions."
James E. "Jim" Gordon
Chairman, Board of Directors
Make-A-Wish Foundation of America
Pam Bartlett
In article <4n5gpa$r...@soap.news.pipex.net> jr...@dial.pipex.com (Susan Taft) writes:
>From: jr...@dial.pipex.com (Susan Taft)
>Subject: Re: "Make a Wish" pays for childs wish to KILL Animals !!!!!!!
>mrg...@htp.net wrote:
>>
>> "Make a Wish Foundation" PAYS for childs wish to-
>> take a safarri to Africa and KILL a Bear for fun !!!!!!!
>> PLEASE read this and call their toll free 800 number ( 800-332-9474
>>)and express YOUR dissatisfaction with their decision to grant this child a
>>wish to KILL a live BEAR before the child himself dies.
>> The Associated Press wire service confirmed yesterday the the
>>international organization "Make a Wish Foundation" based in Arizona, USA
>>has chosen to grant a dieing childs wish to go on a safarri and KILL A LIVE
>>BEAR. The organization plans to pay for this child to travel to Africa,
>>hotel, guns and ammo. The un-named child will be led to a spot in which "a
>>kill is assured".
>> What kind of message is this organization who is funded strictly
>>through charitable donations sending?????
>> It's OK to KILL innocent animals at a whim ????
>> PLEASE DON'T MISUNDERSTAND MY VIEW-
>>
>> -I am VERY sorry that this child is terminally ill !!
>> -Granting a POSITIVE wish is WONDERFUL !!
>> -Killing this animal will obviously not provide this child food- or
>> clothing- Just FUN !!!!
>> -All it will do is take the innocent bear
>> to the grave !!!!
>> -If the child is going to die must he TAKE an innocent
>> animal with him ????
>> -It is VERY WRONG to condone the killing of animals and how can they
>> expect further $$$$ support from us the public after spending
>> our donated money to KILL ANIMALS ????
>> PLEASE CALL their (toll free 800 number) and tell of your feelings
>>toward this wish they choose to grant. Together we can STOP this senseless
>>MURDER !!!!
>>"Make A Wish Foundation"
>> 800-332-9474
>I have also heard about this in the UK via a national radio station.
>I only hope he dies before he gets there. Maybe there is some justice
>in this world - a kid with this mentality does not deserve to live.
>Flame me if you want but I can't see any justification in taking an
>endangered species life.
Normally I don't respond to this type of thing, but having lost my only child
when he was 14 I simply cannot comprehend someone saying "I only hope he
dies...". While I am appalled at the Make a Wish Foundation for supporting
this loathsome "wish" and intend to call them, wishing someone's child dead
leaves me speechless.
Pam
David Leach
John Herold wrote:
>
>
> Oh, good Lord, can't we ever get the facts straight in this
> newsgroup?!?
>
> First, the child's wish is to hunt and kill a Kodiak bear, in ALASKA
> (not Africa). There will be no safarri... geesh.
And the difference here, other than cost, is?
>
> The AP reported that the Make A Wish Foundation would be fulfilling
> the kid's wish, that much is true; and the MAWF acknowledges it.
>
> I've called the MAWF and asked for the FACTS of the matter -- whether
> the meat / carcass will be igiven to the natives, etc. Whether the
> bear in question might be one destined for desbtuction already.
> Whether this will be part of a legal hunt, or what.
You called, and they said what? Don't tease us, let us know.
> Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
The unfortunate fact is that a lot of people and companies give a lot of money to
keep the Make-a-Wish Foundation going. It's a pretty neat idea to have
terminally ill kids get a trip to Disney World or a ride on the GoodYear blimp
that they would not otherwise be able to afford. BUT, that the same corporations
and the people who run them are supporting Bear hunting is repugnant too many,
and will create PR and fund raising problems for the organization for a while to
come I think.
>
> -John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditonal Siamese), Baltimore MD
David Leach
John Herold
On 14 May 1996 18:20:04 GMT, guba...@ix.netcom.com(D&P Gubanc) wrote:
>[some snipped]
>
>>I find it rather hard to belive that MAWF would take on a project like
>>this with so much public relations disater potential without covering
>>these bases.
>>
>>Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
>>
>> -John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditonal Siamese), Baltimore MD
>
>John, I appreciate and commend your trying to remain calm and rational.
Thank you <bowing deeply, presenting bald head as target for pies
about to be thrown>. :-)
>Unfortunately, our egotistical assumption that we have the right to
>invade dwindling habitat and kill the animals trying to survive there
>makes it difficult for me to be other than enraged. The issue, for me,
>isn't whether we're talking about a sole expedition or a safari, nor
>whether the bear lives in Alaska or in a penthouse overlooking Central
>Park. The issue, for me, is that we so discount any lives other than
>human lives.
Well... it turns out that the bear hunt he kid is on is entirely
legal, etc., just like deer season in many parts of the U.S. It seems
your complaint is about hunting, not this incident (which I now
question for other reason, as notedin another post). And that's a
whole 'nother subject, I think.
> It seems to me, by the way, that all of the myriad
>supermarkets we've developed on all of what USED to be habitat contain
>more than enough meat, wrapped nicely in shrink wrap, to feed the
>entire damned universe!!!! Phyllis
Er, not quite; otherwise, the meat form the geese that I shoot (in
season, when there is a season) would have no need to be donated to
the needy. ;-)
Ruth Laurie
has little time left to live shouldn't be allowed to go
out to hunt in peace. What are the chances that he'll even
see a bear let alone shot one? Don't be so ridiculous
The child has a right to happiness and if the bear meat is
going to be eaten you don't have anything to bitch about
it really isn't any of your business anyways. It's not like
the bear is on the endagered species list, just take a minute
to think about it do you really think they would agree to
the hunt if it were?
Mike -n- Val Stephens
Susan Taft (jr...@dial.pipex.com) wrote:
: mrg...@htp.net wrote:
: >
: > "Make a Wish Foundation" PAYS for childs wish to-
: > take a safarri to Africa and KILL a Bear for fun !!!!!!!
: > PLEASE read this and call their toll free 800 number ( 800-332-9474
: >)and express YOUR dissatisfaction with their decision to grant this child a
: >wish to KILL a live BEAR before the child himself dies.
I appreciate your passion for the subject, but make sure to reveal the
FACTS about the situation so we don't have 600 people calling them
without a CLUE...first of all...YOU CAN'T GO ON A SAFARI FOR KODIAK BEARS IN
AFRICA!
At least not the last time I checked. I mean, I guess you technically
*could* go, but I don't think you'd come back with anything. The poor kid
wants to hunt a Kodiak bear, which happens to be native in ALASKA.
Now, I don't agree with this one bit, the kid souldn't be allowed
to kill an animal for fun. BUT I do see the bad position Make-a-Wish was
in. I guess they were pretty much darned if they did, darned if they
didn't. I mean, can't you just SEE the headlines...Make-a-wish denies
child their dying wish, News at 11...or something to this effect. Again,
in my opinion this would have been the correct thing to do by not letting
the child go, but, this is a major corporation with lots of sponsors.
Now, the really scary part is, they did vote on this and talk about it
for weeks, so obviously must have gotten a majority vote and consensus
from the leading people of that company. Personally, I won't call them
because there are much bigger problems in the animal-industry to think
about, like poachers, and people that go out and club baby seals, and
old, drunk men who go kill 50 deer in a weekend just for the sport of it
(and before I get flamed, I know that young, sober men do this also, just
not in my family, heh). If a 7 year old girl can be allowed to fly an
airplane, the kid should be allowed to go hunt a bear. Not because it is
or isn't morally correct, but because it is his right. I mean, if the kid
didn't have this disease, he might grow to be 20, move to Alaska, and
kill a bear a day, and noone would say anything, right? I dunno, I just
say give the kid his dying wish. If I was his dad, I would try talking
him into a *different* wish. Also, they could consider just shooting it
with tranquilzer darts or something (dunno how that works). Not the most
humane thing but better than killing it. Maybe the kid would never even
know, heh. I also have one other question, are Kodiak bears killed for
anything like their fur? I mean, if they called a business that
kill & manufactued bear meat or something, the kid could go shoot the
bear and donate it or something...that way they weren't just killing it
and leaving it for the vultures, which I TOTALLY disagree with. We kill
animals everyday, but I dont agree with purely killing an animal for fun
and not doing anything with it after that (like stuffing it). Anyways,
that's just my opinion..you don't have to agree with it but please don't
personally attack me for it.
Val & Dobie
--
'Keep those ferrets )|||||( /====\ )|( 'Hey dad,
away from me!' | | /| |\ (/ \) can the cat
/\___/\ |@ @ | //| @ @|\\ / o o \ )|( come
( o o ) | U | ///| U |\\\ \ u / /oo \) play?'
------((---------))-oo0O-------O0oo----o0O----O0o-----||-----||---------------
Opinions exressed here may not be the opinions of both Michael AND Valerie..
you never know when one's taking the side of another animal!
D&P Gubanc
>it seems stupid to be mad at the fact that a child that
>has little time left to live shouldn't be allowed to go
>out to hunt in peace. What are the chances that he'll even
>see a bear let alone shot one? Don't be so ridiculous
>The child has a right to happiness and if the bear meat is
>going to be eaten you don't have anything to bitch about
>it really isn't any of your business anyways. It's not like
>the bear is on the endagered species list, just take a minute
>to think about it do you really think they would agree to
>the hunt if it were?
Hmmmm. Taking a minute to think. Hmmmmm. Yes, I do. Now. Humans
aren't an endangered species, are they? So why do we object to going
out and stalking them and killing them? Oh, yes. We're the superior
race. Sorry. I forget these important facts so quickly. Oh, and by the
way, I've read about the bear hunts, and have been told by a woman who
participated in one (and killed one) that the hunters are pretty much
assured that they will, in fact, bag one of those dreadful creatures
who dare to walk the same earth we do, taunting us with their
"huntability." And if I stayed out of everything that isn't my
business, I wouldn't have rescued abandoned cats, donated to the Cancer
Society, worked with alcoholics and drug addicts, volunteered at
wildlife rehab clinics, etc. That "child" is a 17 year old who has
chosen as his dying wish to kill a living creature. I find that to be
my business, damnit, whether you like it or not. And I hope to God that
if YOU ever need help, someone like me is nearby to offer it. Phyllis
D&P Gubanc
>Well... it turns out that the bear hunt he kid is on is entirely
>legal, etc., just like deer season in many parts of the U.S. It seems
>your complaint is about hunting, not this incident (which I now
>question for other reason, as notedin another post). And that's a
>whole 'nother subject, I think.
>
>Er, not quite; otherwise, the meat form the geese that I shoot (in
>season, when there is a season) would have no need to be donated to
>the needy. ;-)
>
> -John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditonal Siamese), Baltimore MD
Nah, John. I don't object to hunting. My husband and I own 89 acres in
WVA filled with deer nicely seasoned with the oregano I've planted each
year, the azaleas I've planted, even the occasional catnip plant.
Friends and family hunt on our property during each hunting season.
Even if the bear is used for food, I loathe the concept. I can't
explain the difference between bear for food/deer for food. This whole
thing just feels wrong. Phyllis
D&P Gubanc
[drivel snipped - okay, my opinion only!]
>We are aware that the wish has resulted in debate, both pro and con.
>We respect the rights of all parties to express their own values and
>opinions."
>
>James E. "Jim" Gordon
>Chairman, Board of Directors
>Make-A-Wish Foundation of America
>
>
>......but they clearly don't respect the rights of wildlife, do they?
Or are humans the only ones with any rights? That must be it. Silly me.
Phyllis
Mike -n- Val Stephens
David Leach (David...@nortel.com) wrote:
: John Herold wrote:
: >
: >
: > Oh, good Lord, can't we ever get the facts straight in this
: > newsgroup?!?
: >
: > First, the child's wish is to hunt and kill a Kodiak bear, in ALASKA
: > (not Africa). There will be no safarri... geesh.
: And the difference here, other than cost, is?
Nothing, except for the fact that if you're going to write a heated post
such as hers, you should get the fact straight. I mean, can you imagine
the thousand or so people calling make-a-wish and sounding like morons who
can't get their facts straight? And, it's a pity noone has brought this up
before..people DO hunt. Anyone that knows a family of hunters knows how
passionate they are about the sport (dumb though it may be). The kid
probaly just wants to be like he 'dad' or something, for he will never
grow up and experience the same things. He's seen his dad do it all his
life, and it is important to him. I dunno, hunting is wrong but I doubt
the kid is old enough to make this distinction. Maybe not granting the
wish would have broken his heart. I guess I can just see it from both
points of view.
mrg...@htp.net
Kets go to each of their www sites and tell each of the sponsers that we
wont deal with them until they stop this !!!!
In article <3197f5a...@news.clark.net>,
j...@clark.net (John Herold) wrote:
>mrg...@htp.net wrote:
>
>>
>> "Make a Wish Foundation" PAYS for childs wish to-
>> take a safarri to Africa and KILL a Bear for fun !!!!!!!
>>
>> PLEASE read this and call their toll free 800 number ( 800-332-9474
>>)and express YOUR dissatisfaction with their decision to grant this child
a
>>wish to KILL a live BEAR before the child himself dies.
>>
>> The Associated Press wire service confirmed yesterday the the
>>international organization "Make a Wish Foundation" based in Arizona, USA
>>has chosen to grant a dieing childs wish to go on a safarri and KILL A
LIVE
>>BEAR. The organization plans to pay for this child to travel to Africa,
>>hotel, guns and ammo. The un-named child will be led to a spot in which "a
>>kill is assured".
>
>Oh, good Lord, can't we ever get the facts straight in this
>newsgroup?!?
>
>First, the child's wish is to hunt and kill a Kodiak bear, in ALASKA
>(not Africa). There will be no safarri... geesh.
>
>The AP reported that the Make A Wish Foundation would be fulfilling
>the kid's wish, that much is true; and the MAWF acknowledges it.
>
>I've called the MAWF and asked for the FACTS of the matter -- whether
>the meat / carcass will be igiven to the natives, etc. Whether the
>bear in question might be one destined for desbtuction already.
>Whether this will be part of a legal hunt, or what.
>
>I find it rather hard to belive that MAWF would take on a project like
>this with so much public relations disater potential without covering
>these bases.
>
>Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
>
>
>
>
David Swanson
>
>The unfortunate fact is that a lot of people and companies give a lot of money
>to
>keep the Make-a-Wish Foundation going. It's a pretty neat idea to have
>terminally ill kids get a trip to Disney World or a ride on the GoodYear blimp
>that they would not otherwise be able to afford. BUT, that the same corporati
o
>ns
>and the people who run them are supporting Bear hunting is repugnant too many,
>and will create PR and fund raising problems for the organization for a while
t
>o
>come I think.
>
>
>
It's a free country. The "make a wish foundation" can do what it chooses
and support the causes that it feels are right. We don't have to agree and
WE DON"T HAVE TO SUPPORT THEM. I personally cant wait for some telephone
fund raiser to call and try to get ME to donate. I will continue to ask
questions about the bear until HE/SHE hangs up on me!
Wouldn't you just love to be known as "that bear killing gruop" - talk
about a PR nightmare!
Hilda
sham...@inferno.com
GU>[some snipped]
GU>>I find it rather hard to belive that MAWF would take on a project like
GU>>this with so much public relations disater potential without covering
GU>>these bases.
GU>>
GU>>Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
GU>>
GU>>
GU>>
GU>>
GU>> -John Herold, THC Cattery (Traditonal Siamese), Baltimore MD
GU>John, I appreciate and commend your trying to remain calm and rational.
GU>Unfortunately, our egotistical assumption that we have the right to
GU>invade dwindling habitat and kill the animals trying to survive there
GU>makes it difficult for me to be other than enraged. The issue, for me,
GU>isn't whether we're talking about a sole expedition or a safari, nor
GU>whether the bear lives in Alaska or in a penthouse overlooking Central
GU>Park. The issue, for me, is that we so discount any lives other than
GU>human lives. It seems to me, by the way, that all of the myriad
GU>supermarkets we've developed on all of what USED to be habitat contain
GU>more than enough meat, wrapped nicely in shrink wrap, to feed the
GU>entire damned universe!!!! Phyllis
I saw a great political cartoon today re this travesty of MAW. It was a
parent bear sitting reading a letter with a child bear. Parent "Oh Make
A Wish have granted you your wish to maul a human before you die".
Kate
John Herold
On Wed, 15 May 1996 12:14:32 -0500, David Leach
<David...@nortel.com> wrote:
>John Herold wrote:
>>...
>> First, the child's wish is to hunt and kill a Kodiak bear, in ALASKA
>> (not Africa). There will be no safarri... geesh.
>
>And the difference here, other than cost, is?
Was just pointing out the origianl poster's inaccuracy, which on this
magnitude makes the overall post questionable IMO.
(Regardig cost, the trip was an in-kind donation by a hunt-travel
agancy.)
>> The AP reported that the Make A Wish Foundation would be fulfilling
>> the kid's wish, that much is true; and the MAWF acknowledges it.
>>
>> I've called the MAWF and asked for the FACTS of the matter -- whether
>> the meat / carcass will be igiven to the natives, etc. Whether the
>> bear in question might be one destined for desbtuction already.
>> Whether this will be part of a legal hunt, or what.
>
>You called, and they said what? Don't tease us, let us know.
I posted a rundown on that, but it doesn't seem to be on my server so
maybe it didn't go out. They weren't much help, wouldn't talk about
it except to confirm that the hunt was in progress and that it had
been through their Michigan chapter, and so on. Found out more
searching 'AP OnLine' at the LA Times website.
>> Until we find out the FACTS, let's all calm down... please?
>
>The unfortunate fact is that a lot of people and companies give a lot of money to
>keep the Make-a-Wish Foundation going. It's a pretty neat idea to have
>terminally ill kids get a trip to Disney World or a ride on the GoodYear blimp
>that they would not otherwise be able to afford. BUT, that the same corporations
>and the people who run them are supporting Bear hunting is repugnant too many,
>and will create PR and fund raising problems for the organization for a while to
>come I think.
I think the MAWF has a lot to learn about public relations.
I think that if they'd made it clear that the kid was on a legal,
guided hunt many people who had a different impressionw ould have been
satisfied.
I'll go farther. There's a lot of jumping up and down about this kid,
but none about all the other legal guided bear hunts in Alaska. If
you had to rank them, this kid's hunt would be farther down the scale
than many others with less purpose/rationale behind them. Howcum no
one is raising hell with Alaska and the guides for those other hunts?
And where are the massive demonstrations in Alaska's capital against
bear hunting as a legal activity? Hmmm...
I think the MAWF did okay here. AP reports that the upsets are coming
from urbanbased animal rights groups, but few from areas where the
animlas are. Sounds to me like a lot of people trying to tell other
people how to live, a lot of "let's you and him fight" kind of talk.
Whatever, MAWF did what they've said they were for all along, and I'm
glad to see an organization fulfilling its purpose. They'll get a
donation from me this year.
Ginger Sackett Glaser
>I posted a rundown on that, but it doesn't seem to be on my server so
>maybe it didn't go out. They weren't much help, wouldn't talk about
>it except to confirm that the hunt was in progress and that it had
>been through their Michigan chapter, and so on. Found out more
>searching 'AP OnLine' at the LA Times website.
Well, while we're correcting facts here ----
It was the Minnesota chapter, not Michigan. The family lives in White
Bear Lake, MN (a suburb of St. Paul).
Ginger
Barbara Cullingsworth
Isn' there enough killing in this world without 'Make A Wish'
contributing to more of it? Don't Animals have rights? I guess not...I
am sorry! I forgot that they don't work and pay taxes. Money! Money!
Money! We take the habitat away from animals by building shopping centers
and tract housing. When the poor animals 'get in our way' we want to
either kill them or relocate them. This world is becoming a real 'piece
of work'. I would rather live surrounded by critters than to be
surrounded by humans. Why does everything have to hinge on money instead
of doing the right thing. 'Make A Wish' is getting my email message and
it will not be a pleasant one. I will never support them ever if they
don't make a clause stating that there can be no wish granted that would
take the life of a living thing.
Barb
=^;^=
John Herold
(I mixed up my states... mea culpa, and thank you for the gentle
correction!) :-)
BRADLEY BLECK
I read in the local paper today that Make A Wish has decided to review
its approval of future hunting-related wishes. Just a few days ago I
heard one of their people stating that they weren't going to back down or
change their policies. Those of us who called can no doubt take credit
for this turn-around.
Rachel
White Fox
> Now, I don't agree with this one bit, the kid souldn't be allowed
>to kill an animal for fun. BUT I do see the bad position Make-a-Wish was
>in. I guess they were pretty much darned if they did, darned if they
>didn't. I mean, can't you just SEE the headlines...Make-a-wish denies
>child their dying wish, News at 11...or something to this effect.
Make-a-Wish requires that the child give them two wishes to consider.
If the first wish is unacceptable, they go for the second wish. The
wishes are not to include anything that puts the child in a dangerous
situation or gives the child a firearm. This wish seems to violate
both of these rules. However, there is also an escape clause that
allows for hunting. Yes, this is a bit contradictory.
The point here is that Make-a-Wish did not have to allow the first
wish, and in fact has gone for a child's second wish on several
occasions in similar circumstances involving danger & firearms. The
headlines came because of allowing this wish, denying it to use his
second wish would have caused nothing on the scale of this debacle.
> If a 7 year old girl can be allowed to fly an
>airplane, the kid should be allowed to go hunt a bear.
If you are talking about the girl I think you are, she died when the
plane crashed. And I wouldn't consider this a comparable situation
since it didn't involve giving a child a firearm and sanctioning the
killing of an animal for other purposes than to eat. But I'm not sure
that Make-a-Wish would have considered granting a wish to allow the
girl to fly across country in the context of it being too dangerous.
> I also have one other question, are Kodiak bears killed for
>anything like their fur? I mean, if they called a business that
>kill & manufactued bear meat or something, the kid could go shoot the
>bear and donate it or something...that way they weren't just killing it
>and leaving it for the vultures, which I TOTALLY disagree with. We kill
>animals everyday, but I dont agree with purely killing an animal for fun
>and not doing anything with it after that (like stuffing it).
Bears are killed mostly for their fur, this is why we have bear rugs.
I've heard he wants to stuff it, but I don't know if that's for sure,
taxidermy is expensive. Not to mention after awhile the thing starts
to look like hell, it gets dirty and sheds, and basically takes up a
lot of room for something that just collects spider webs between it's
front teeth. Most people find the eating of bear meat to be rather
unpleasant so I doubt that was a consideration. We can only hope they
give the meat to the native population, who are probably the only ones
who would utilize it instead of letting it go to waste.
White Fox
robert a. moeser
In article <319bb0b...@news.clark.net>, j...@clark.net (John Herold) wrote:
:...They'll get a donation from me this year.
not from me.
this web address was brought to my attention (thanks, Pearl!):
http://www.wcco.com/bts/williams.html
you can go there and vote! i voted "no". very satisfying.
drop them some email while you are there.
my brother wrote me saying:
>I voted no too. But I think he should actually have a chance to
>hunt the Kodiak bear...without a gun. Just Erik against the bear.
>That would be ok.
ha! ok with me too! :-)
-- rob
Odette Brown
Hi,
Better vote NO soon the YES is winning.
Odette.
--
**** Odette Brown ** I love Cats *****
*** La Belle Province ** Quebec ** CANADA ***
*** My home page can be found at this URL ***
http://www.worldlink.ca/~rathey/odette.htm
D&P Gubanc
> Hi,
> Better vote NO soon the YES is winning.
>
> Odette.
>
>--
>**** Odette Brown ** I love Cats *****
>*** La Belle Province ** Quebec ** CANADA ***
>*** My home page can be found at this URL ***
> http://www.worldlink.ca/~rathey/odette.htm
Yeah. I just voted. It was 66% yes, 33% no. I guess the remaining 1%
was out hunting. Phyllis
D&P Gubanc
>>I voted no too. But I think he should actually have a chance to
>>hunt the Kodiak bear...without a gun. Just Erik against the bear.
>>That would be ok.
>
>ha! ok with me too! :-)
>
>-- rob
Me, too! Either that, or give the bear a gun. AFter all, I support the
right to arm bears. Phyllis [quoting one of her favorite bumper
stickers]
Ginger Sackett Glaser
r...@tiac.net (robert a. moeser) wrote:
>In article <319bb0b...@news.clark.net>, j...@clark.net (John Herold) wrote:
>:...They'll get a donation from me this year.
>not from me.
>this web address was brought to my attention (thanks, Pearl!):
>http://www.wcco.com/bts/williams.html
To those who are interested, Kraft is doing a fundraiser for Make a
Wish this month, where a portion of every purchase goes to them. If
you are serious about not supporting them, you might want to lay off
Kraft products for a while.
Ginger
KathyG
guba...@ix.netcom.com(D&P Gubanc) wrote:
~ >>I voted no too. But I think he should actually have a chance to
~ >>hunt the Kodiak bear...without a gun. Just Erik against the bear.
~ >>That would be ok.
~ >
~ >ha! ok with me too! :-)
~ >
~ >-- rob
~
~ Me, too! Either that, or give the bear a gun. AFter all, I support the
~ right to arm bears. Phyllis [quoting one of her favorite bumper
~ stickers]
Oh sh*t , Phyllis I was eating and snorted pocorn straight up me nose. I
don't care tho'--that's a great slogan!
--
8 cats 1 d*g and 1 hoomin so far...
[Colette, Lily, Frau Freya, Leon, Burt, Leify, Simba, Puffy, William(a d*g),
& Kathy(a hoomin)]
sham...@inferno.com
BL>I read in the local paper today that Make A Wish has decided to review
BL>its approval of future hunting-related wishes. Just a few days ago I
BL>heard one of their people stating that they weren't going to back down or
BL>change their policies. Those of us who called can no doubt take credit
BL>for this turn-around.
BL>Rachel
Since when has a 17 year old been a child? He is in remission. This
stinks. Kate
sham...@inferno.com
CH>Make-a-Wish requires that the child give them two wishes to consider.
This "child" was 17 years old.
CH>If the first wish is unacceptable, they go for the second wish. The
One wonders what the first wish was if the second was to kill a bear!
CH>wishes are not to include anything that puts the child in a dangerous
CH>situation or gives the child a firearm. This wish seems to violate
CH>both of these rules. However, there is also an escape clause that
CH>allows for hunting. Yes, this is a bit contradictory.
CH>Bears are killed mostly for their fur, this is why we have bear rugs.
CH>I've heard he wants to stuff it, but I don't know if that's for sure,
CH>taxidermy is expensive. Not to mention after awhile the thing starts
CH>to look like hell, it gets dirty and sheds, and basically takes up a
CH>lot of room for something that just collects spider webs between it's
CH>front teeth. Most people find the eating of bear meat to be rather
CH>unpleasant so I doubt that was a consideration. We can only hope they
CH>give the meat to the native population, who are probably the only ones
CH>who would utilize it instead of letting it go to waste.
CH>White Fox
Actually bears are killed more these days for Chinese potions, their
gall bladders, paws, livers, etc. bring in big money.
Kate
Jane B. Sanders
In <4nqbj0$f...@cobra.Minn.Net> ggl...@minn.net (Ginger Sackett Glaser)
writes:
when I next go to the store.
Jane and Fraidi
Walter Eric Johnson
Mike -n- Val Stephens (ut...@netcom.com) wrote:
: know, heh. I also have one other question, are Kodiak bears killed for
: kill & manufactued bear meat or something, the kid could go shoot the
: bear and donate it or something...that way they weren't just killing it
I am suprised by how many people don't appear to have any concept
of what this is about. There is a big difference between hunting
and killing. The excitement is in the hunt, all of it, not just
the shooting the bear. To walk up to a staked animal and shoot it
is of no interest at all (at least for people who understand
hunting). I have heard of game ranches which raise the game and
for a fee you go and shoot it with no hunting at all, but these
places, if they really exist, do not have hunters as their
clientelle. If all hunting was about was killing something,
the job of killing animals in slaughterhouse would be a highly
prized job. To hear you all tell it, hunting would be nothing
but target practice with animals as targets.
: and leaving it for the vultures, which I TOTALLY disagree with. We kill
: animals everyday, but I dont agree with purely killing an animal for fun
: and not doing anything with it after that (like stuffing it). Anyways,
: that's just my opinion..you don't have to agree with it but please don't
: personally attack me for it.
Eric Johnson
David Swanson
granted the wish of ANOTHER man (17 years old) who wants to shoot and kill
an Alaskan Moose.
We are not winning.
Hilda
sham...@inferno.com
SW>>BL>I read in the local paper today that Make A Wish has decided to review
SW>>BL>its approval of future hunting-related wishes. Just a few days ago I
SW>>BL>heard one of their people stating that they weren't going to back down o
SW>>BL>change their policies. Those of us who called can no doubt take credit
SW>>BL>for this turn-around.
SW>>
SW>>BL>Rachel
SW>>
SW>>Since when has a 17 year old been a child? He is in remission. This
SW>>stinks. Kate
SW>>
SW>According to an article in the paper today, another Make A Wish chapter has
SW>granted the wish of ANOTHER man (17 years old) who wants to shoot and kill
SW>an Alaskan Moose.
SW>We are not winning.
SW>Hilda
Well they ain't getting no more of my money. Kate
TPoe123875
In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
that will go along with it.
Odette Brown
And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
D&P Gubanc
>TPoe123875 (tpoe1...@aol.com) writes:
>> In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting
is a
>> lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in
question
>> are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers
from
>> increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
>> increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the
problems
>> that will go along with it.
>
>
> And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
>
> Odette.
>
AMEN! Phyllis
David Swanson
>In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
>lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
>are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
>increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
>increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
>that will go along with it.
>
kill a bear for his own amusement?
Hilda
Matthew Doig
Odette Brown (au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
:
: TPoe123875 (tpoe1...@aol.com) writes:
: > In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
: > lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
: > are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
: > increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
: > increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
: > that will go along with it.
:
: And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
:
: Odette.
:
Well, it isn't quite the reason you think it is. Yes, some of the Kodiak
bear's territory has been taken over by men, but even if it hadn't, the
bears would face the same problems, the only difference is that nature
would take care of the population control. The bear population would
increase, overburdening the land until food became scarce, leaving the
excess bear population to die slow, painful deaths by starvation and
disease. Ever so much more preferable than being killed by a hunter,
because they would have died natural deaths. Painful, slow, excrutiating
natural deaths.
--
Grundoon, that Li'l Groun'chunk Chile "Grs!"
"And isn't sanity really just a one-trick pony anyway? I mean -- all
you get is one trick: rational thinking. But when you're good and
crazy ... hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo, hoo! The sky's the limit!"
-- The Tick
sham...@inferno.com
SW>>In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
SW>>lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
SW>>are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
SW>>increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
SW>>increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
SW>>that will go along with it.
SW>>
SW>Sure, but should my donations pay for some nimrod to go to Alaska to
SW>kill a bear for his own amusement?
SW>Hilda
Boy how would you feel if we applied the same standards for us humans who
are taking all the animal habitats and and food sources, and in so
doing, slowly destroy nature's balance?
I'm with you Hilda, I do not wish my donation to help fund the killing
of any animal, nor do I wish it to be used for a young man, not a child.
Kate
Robin Hemenway
On 1 Jun 1996, TPoe123875 wrote:
> In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
> lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
> are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
> increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
> increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
> that will go along with it.
>
>
Excuse me, do you know what "carrying capacity" IS? It means that
when the environment can't support as many bears as exist, they die off
or don't reproduce at the same rate. Nature can take of herself just
fine, and no foundation should grant any dying child the wish to take an
innocent life.
Lana
Derek R. Larson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96060...@dale.ucdavis.edu>,
Robin Hemenway <ez05...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> Excuse me, do you know what "carrying capacity" IS? It means that
>when the environment can't support as many bears as exist, they die off
>or don't reproduce at the same rate. Nature can take of herself just
>fine, and no foundation should grant any dying child the wish to take an
>innocent life.
Again, you're anthropocentrising an animal. How can you determine if an
animal is "innocent?" What would make it "guilty?" Presumably this
hypothetical bear has killed just as Eric would do. Both are genetically
programmed as ommnivores and given the tools to kill; the bear has evolved
to use its teeth and claws, the man to use tools. Innocence has nothing
to do with it.
As for carrying capacity, without the hunting as a managment tool, bear
(and other game animal) populations would be much lower. Selective
harvest allows the maintenence of a larger population. Would you rather
have fewer of these "innocent" bears? There are very few ecosystems that
have not been dramatically altered by human intervention; most do not
retain anything like a "natural" carrying capacity. Game management is
one tool that helps restore the balances that are destroyed by development
and other intrusions that make your lifestyle possible.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History
"Nothing interesting occurred today..."
-Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
Judith Lang Shalaby
On 3 Jun 1996 01:55:42 GMT,
D&P Gubanc <guba...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>TPoe123875 (tpoe1...@aol.com) writes:
>>> In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting
>is a
>>> lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in
>question
>>> are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers
>from
>>> increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
>>> increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the
>problems
>>> that will go along with it.
>>
>>
>> And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
>>
>> Odette.
>>
>
>AMEN! Phyllis
>
I am really tired of all the old hash about hunting being a "humane" way to
manage animal populations. I have, in the past, seen very good studies
about animal reproduction RISING in response to predation from humans--that
is to say that deer, for example, breed *more* when they are hunted than
when they are not. If left to their own, these studies say, they breed in
response to conditions in the environment--be that drought or abundance or
extreme cold. "Managing" animal populations by hunting is, in my opinion,
a very outmoded and self serving position that really bolsters the
top-of-the-heap view of animals that many humans have. I do not believe we
are "stewards" of the world and I don't believe that animals are "crops."
And yes, I know that hunting is legal. Even for 17 year olds. The
question is not whether or not this young man had a legal right to hunt but
whether or not the Make a Wish Foundation was wise to grant a wish to this
recovering young man (note: he is NOT terminal) to shed blood as a way of
celebrating his human life. So sad that this young man's brush with death
did not result in him having more respect for the life of the bear.
A depressing addition to the story: Although the young man came back
bearless, there is a "philanthropist" waiting in the wings to give him
another trip so he can eventually get "his" bear. This story was reported
extensively in my home town because the young man is from here.
Judith (donning my flameproof undies)
Derek R. Larson
In article <49698....@maroon.tc.umn.edu>,
Judith Lang Shalaby <j-s...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>I am really tired of all the old hash about hunting being a "humane" way to
>manage animal populations. I have, in the past, seen very good studies
>about animal reproduction RISING in response to predation from humans--that
>is to say that deer, for example, breed *more* when they are hunted than
>when they are not. If left to their own, these studies say, they breed in
>response to conditions in the environment--be that drought or abundance or
>extreme cold.
Please provide citiation for "these studies" so we can read them
ourselves and reach our own conclusions. It is logical that animals will
respond to increased predation with increased fertility (over time). Your
second stipulation, however, is wrong. For example, in Indiana's Brown
County State Park the deer have overbread to the point that the herd has
become malnurished and diseased, has destroyed the forest understory that
many other species depend on, and was near crashing 2-3 years ago.
Biologists directed recommended a series of selective hunts that
attenuated this population and have helped restore the balance within the
park. The "do nothing" option would have meant hundreds of dead deer,
possiblly the entire population, plus countless other species threatened
by the overbrowsing.
>"Managing" animal populations by hunting is, in my opinion,
>a very outmoded and self serving position that really bolsters the
>top-of-the-heap view of animals that many humans have. I do not believe we
>are "stewards" of the world and I don't believe that animals are "crops."
Your opinion is not shared by the biologists that manage our wildlife
resources. Since humans have drastically altered ecosystems by
eliminating most predators in the 19th century, certain populations (like
deer) will explode and enter a Malthusian cycle of overpopulation without
some form of substitute predation. Would you rather they were poisoned?
Game managment does, I agree, focus too heavily on "game" species and not
enough on smaller mammals, etc. but that's due to the fact that 90% of
wildlife managemennt funding comes from license fees and excise taxes paid
by hunters and fishermen; if the rest of the public cared enough to pony
up the funds, perhaps the focus could be shifted somewhat.
>And yes, I know that hunting is legal. Even for 17 year olds. The
>question is not whether or not this young man had a legal right to hunt but
>whether or not the Make a Wish Foundation was wise to grant a wish to this
>recovering young man (note: he is NOT terminal) to shed blood as a way of
>celebrating his human life.
Actually, the way you (and most others) have argued against the wish makes
it clear that you are anti-hunting in general and not particularly
concerned with MAW. Otherwise why all the arguments about game management
above? Regardless, what difference does it make if he's terminal or not?
Would you point that out if the wish was a trip to Dizz-Knee World?
>So sad that this young man's brush with death
>did not result in him having more respect for the life of the bear.
Do you know Eric? How can you presume to assess his level of respect for
the bear? You obviously don't know enough about hunting to understand
that hunters often feel the very essence of their activity is respect for
the prey. He may well respect the bear more than you know. Read a book
or two about hunting ethics sometime; I suggest you start with "Beyond
Fair Chase" by Lew Posewitz, which should be in your library.
Denise H. Ratcliff
In article <4p4927$7...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>,
drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) wrote:
I hope no one respects me enough to kill me.
The Cat Burglar
I just wanted to make a note that I have just found out what kind of people
own the cat I had taken in ("Jinx") - the ones who called the police
about it rather than speaking to me...
As I was walking down the street a few minutes ago, as I passed a small
take-out resturant, some guy (who I've never seen) came out after I went
by & called out to his friend across the street "That's the one! That's
the one who stole my cat!" Which was followed by shouts of "cat-napper"
and the like from one or the other of them. I supressed the urge to go
have a "little chat" with them, and decided that whatever I had to say to
them would be beyond their limited imaginations (not to mention brain
capacity). I simply ignored them & went on walking (& walked back on the
opposite side of the street). I had considered trying to talk to them so
that they would understand the situation, but have now reconsidered. Oh
yes, and I suppose the cat really thought that he was "stolen" too -
especially considering that he's been crying (very loudly) at my door for
the past few days! :P
-Kris (getting very upset & frustrated over the whole situation)
A. Hutchinson
Well, all I can say, is I hope they take better care of the cat, than
their behavior in public would lead one to expect! "Boorish" people may
still take care of their pets, but I wonder why the kitty keeps coming
back to you? Sounds like the cat wants a new home!
Amber
Robin Hemenway
On 5 Jun 1996, Derek R. Larson wrote:
> In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.96060...@dale.ucdavis.edu>,
> Robin Hemenway <ez05...@peseta.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
> > Excuse me, do you know what "carrying capacity" IS? It means that
> >when the environment can't support as many bears as exist, they die off
> >or don't reproduce at the same rate. Nature can take of herself just
> >fine, and no foundation should grant any dying child the wish to take an
> >innocent life.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Again, you're anthropocentrising an animal. How can you determine if an
> animal is "innocent?" What would make it "guilty?" Presumably this
> hypothetical bear has killed just as Eric would do. Both are genetically
> programmed as ommnivores and given the tools to kill; the bear has evolved
> to use its teeth and claws, the man to use tools. Innocence has nothing
> to do with it.
>
> As for carrying capacity, without the hunting as a managment tool, bear
> (and other game animal) populations would be much lower. Selective
> harvest allows the maintenence of a larger population. Would you rather
> have fewer of these "innocent" bears? There are very few ecosystems that
> have not been dramatically altered by human intervention; most do not
> retain anything like a "natural" carrying capacity. Game management is
> one tool that helps restore the balances that are destroyed by development
> and other intrusions that make your lifestyle possible
Excuse me, you don't know me or my "lifestyle." I do not approve
of the lifestyle I have been born into. I think that humans should leave
nature alone and quit overpopulating. I think there should be a superior
species to use the "game management" tool on humans, because obviously
most of us are incapable of controlling our own populations and use of
resources. My lifestyle, or what I can control of it, is not made
possible by killing bears that have the right to be in their natural habitat.
Derek R. Larson
In article <Pine.SOL.3.91.960605...@dale.ucdavis.edu>,
Since you're obviously trying to argue a point without any relevant
information I shouldn't take the time to respond. However, I will point
out that unless you are living inside some sort of synthetic bubble and
exist only on organically grown vegetable matter, you are in part
responsible for the human deeds that have disrupted existing ecosystems.
Every strip of pavement, every house, every stitch of clothing you own is
a product (directly or indirectly) of habitiat degredation that has
resulted in the need to manage wildlife populations. You may not be
killing bears, but you are killing an endless variety of other species
simply by existing in our society, so get off your high horse for a while.
Diane Stapley
Matthew Doig wrote:
>
> Odette Brown (au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
> :
> : TPoe123875 (tpoe1...@aol.com) writes:
> : > In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
> : > lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
> : > are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
> : > increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
> : > increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
> : > that will go along with it.
> :
> :
> : And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
> :
> : Odette.
> Well, it isn't quite the reason you think it is. Yes, some of the Kodiak
> bear's territory has been taken over by men, but even if it hadn't, the
> bears would face the same problems, the only difference is that nature
> would take care of the population control. The bear population would
> increase, overburdening the land until food became scarce, leaving the
> excess bear population to die slow, painful deaths by starvation and
> disease. Ever so much more preferable than being killed by a hunter,
> because they would have died natural deaths. Painful, slow, excrutiating
> natural deaths.
I haven't followed this whole thread, so I'll try not to make any
judgmental remarks here. Matthew is correct in that hunting is
sometimes an approved and perhaps preferable way to control the
population. When I was a child in rural New Hampshire, we had a huge
problem with overpopulation of deer. It got so bad that not only were
they starving and catching diseases, but humans were getting hurt in the
process--the deer were tramping into peoples' yards and across highways
by the dozens. There is a similar problem of late in Maine with moose,
and it stems from areas where human expansion can't really be cited as
the cause of the overpopulation (ie. less acreage + static numbers = not
enough space per animal doesn't work here, it's so rural there are very
few humans)--the animals are just plain overbreeding.
Personally, I don't feel that hunting for sport is a very decent thing
to do, but I know it goes on. I _certainly_ don't feel that Make a Wish
should have condoned this sort of behaviour, but being Native American I
don't feel you should kill something unless you really _need_ the food,
and that you should then make use of every part of the animal that you
can.
sham...@inferno.com
DI>Matthew Doig wrote:
DI>>
DI>> Odette Brown (au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
DI>> :
DI>> : TPoe123875 (tpoe1...@aol.com) writes:
DI>> : > In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is
DI>> : > lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in questio
DI>> : > are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers f
DI>> : > increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
DI>> : > increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the proble
DI>> : > that will go along with it.
DI>> :
DI>> :
DI>> : And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
DI>> :
DI>> : Odette.
DI>> :
DI>> Well, it isn't quite the reason you think it is. Yes, some of the Kodiak
DI>> bear's territory has been taken over by men, but even if it hadn't, the
DI>> bears would face the same problems, the only difference is that nature
DI>> would take care of the population control. The bear population would
DI>> increase, overburdening the land until food became scarce, leaving the
DI>> excess bear population to die slow, painful deaths by starvation and
DI>> disease. Ever so much more preferable than being killed by a hunter,
DI>> because they would have died natural deaths. Painful, slow, excrutiating
DI>> natural deaths.
DI> I haven't followed this whole thread, so I'll try not to make any
DI>judgmental remarks here. Matthew is correct in that hunting is
DI>sometimes an approved and perhaps preferable way to control the
DI>population. When I was a child in rural New Hampshire, we had a huge
DI>problem with overpopulation of deer. It got so bad that not only were
DI>they starving and catching diseases, but humans were getting hurt in the
[B>process--the deer were tramping into peoples' yards and across highways
DI[By the dozens. There is a similar problem of late in Maine with moose,
DI>and it stems from areas where human expansion can't really be cited as
DI>the cause of the overpopulation (ie. less acreage + static numbers = not
DI>enough space per animal doesn't work here, it's so rural there are very
DI>few humans)--the animals are just plain overbreeding.
DI> Personally, I don't feel that hunting for sport is a very decent thing
DI>to do, but I know it goes on. I _certainly_ don't feel that Make a Wish
DI>should have condoned this sort of behaviour, but being Native American I
DI>don't feel you should kill something unless you really _need_ the food,
DI>and that you should then make use of every part of the animal that you
DI>can.
[B
Human overpopulation is, IMNSHO, the biggest threat to Earth. Lands are
taken and destroyed either by building on it, poisoning it or just
changing the flora and fauna on it. Many humans have little idea how to
live with their environment and do not even try. We are mostly greedy
and thoughtless of ourselves, others and the environment. To make
things even worse those same controls you speak of that kill animals
naturally during overpopulation are being circumvented by humans through
medicines, technology and killing other animals to keep our dying alive.
Kate
carol hall
the game animals that they want to kill themselves.
CArol
Odette Brown
carol hall (qc...@albany.net) writes:
> sham...@inferno.com wrote:
>>
>> Human overpopulation is, IMNSHO, the biggest threat to Earth. Lands are
>> taken and destroyed either by building on it, poisoning it or just
>> changing the flora and fauna on it. Many humans have little idea how to
>> live with their environment and do not even try. We are mostly greedy
>> and thoughtless of ourselves, others and the environment. To make
>> things even worse those same controls you speak of that kill animals
>> naturally during overpopulation are being circumvented by humans through
>> medicines, technology and killing other animals to keep our dying alive.
>>
>> KateAnd they get pissed off at other animals such as wolves,lynx,etc killing
> the game animals that they want to kill themselves.
>
> CArol
If all of YOU who wants to hunt, why not go in the woods and hunt
EACH OTHER, that would help the human overpopulation!
sham...@inferno.com
QC>sham...@inferno.com wrote:
QC>>
QC>> DI>Matthew Doig wrote:
QC>> DI>>
QC>> DI>> Odette Brown (au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
QC>> DI>> :
QC>> DI>> : TPoe123875 (tpoe1...@aol.com) writes:
QC>> DI>> : > In response to your article I would just like to state that hunti
QC>> DI>> : > lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in qu
QC>> DI>> : > are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numb
QC>> DI>> : > increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbe
QC>> DI>> : > increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the p
QC>> DI>> : > that will go along with it.
QC>> DI>> :
QC>> DI>> :
QC>> DI>> : And WHY DO YOU THINK there is not enough room for the bears????
QC>> DI>> :
QC>> DI>> : Odette.
QC>> DI>> :
QC>> DI>> Well, it isn't quite the reason you think it is. Yes, some of the Ko
QC>> DI>> bear's territory has been taken over by men, but even if it hadn't, t
QC>> DI>> bears would face the same problems, the only difference is that natur
QC>> DI>> would take care of the population control. The bear population would
QC>> DI>> increase, overburdening the land until food became scarce, leaving th
QC>> DI>> excess bear population to die slow, painful deaths by starvation and
QC>> DI>> disease. Ever so much more preferable than being killed by a hunter,
QC>> DI>> because they would have died natural deaths. Painful, slow, excrutia
QC>> DI>> natural deaths.
QC>>
QC>> DI> I haven't followed this whole thread, so I'll try not to make any
QC>> DI>judgmental remarks here. Matthew is correct in that hunting is
QC>> DI>sometimes an approved and perhaps preferable way to control the
QC>> DI>population. When I was a child in rural New Hampshire, we had a huge
QC>> DI>problem with overpopulation of deer. It got so bad that not only were
QC>> DI>they starving and catching diseases, but humans were getting hurt in th
QC>> [B>process--the deer were tramping into peoples' yards and across highways
QC>> DI[By the dozens. There is a similar problem of late in Maine with moose,
QC>> DI>and it stems from areas where human expansion can't really be cited as
QC>> DI>the cause of the overpopulation (ie. less acreage + static numbers = no
QC>> DI>enough space per animal doesn't work here, it's so rural there are very
QC>> DI>few humans)--the animals are just plain overbreeding.
QC>>
QC>> DI> Personally, I don't feel that hunting for sport is a very decent t
QC>> DI>to do, but I know it goes on. I _certainly_ don't feel that Make a Wis
QC>> DI>should have condoned this sort of behaviour, but being Native American
QC>> DI>don't feel you should kill something unless you really _need_ the food,
QC>> DI>and that you should then make use of every part of the animal that you
QC>> DI>can.
QC>> [B
QC>>
QC>> Human overpopulation is, IMNSHO, the biggest threat to Earth. Lands are
QC>> taken and destroyed either by building on it, poisoning it or just
QC>> changing the flora and fauna on it. Many humans have little idea how to
QC>> live with their environment and do not even try. We are mostly greedy
QC>> and thoughtless of ourselves, others and the environment. To make
QC>> things even worse those same controls you speak of that kill animals
QC>> naturally during overpopulation are being circumvented by humans through
QC>> medicines, technology and killing other animals to keep our dying alive.
QC>>
QC>> KateAnd they get pissed off at other animals such as wolves,lynx,etc killi
QC>the game animals that they want to kill themselves.
QC>CArol
Carol don't you know they are just doing it to be spiteful. Shoot those
wolves and other animals can drive to the supermarket like the rest of
us. I've often seen packaged mice and the like there too. Kate
sham...@inferno.com
AU>carol hall (qc...@albany.net) writes:
AU>> sham...@inferno.com wrote:
AU>>>
AU>>> Human overpopulation is, IMNSHO, the biggest threat to Earth. Lands are
AU>>> taken and destroyed either by building on it, poisoning it or just
AU>>> changing the flora and fauna on it. Many humans have little idea how to
AU>>> live with their environment and do not even try. We are mostly greedy
AU>>> and thoughtless of ourselves, others and the environment. To make
AU>>> things even worse those same controls you speak of that kill animals
AU>>> naturally during overpopulation are being circumvented by humans through
AU>>> medicines, technology and killing other animals to keep our dying alive.
AU>>>
AU>>> KateAnd they get pissed off at other animals such as wolves,lynx,etc kill
AU>> the game animals that they want to kill themselves.
AU>>
AU>> CArol
AU> If all of YOU who wants to hunt, why not go in the woods and hunt
AU> EACH OTHER, that would help the human overpopulation!
AU> Odette.
There you go Odette. When I hear a hunter got shot by another I have to
admit I think "one up for the animals". Kate
Rhonda Rubin
In article <4pgrnr$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Odette Brown) wrote:
> If all of YOU who wants to hunt, why not go in the woods and hunt
Is that really called for?
1) Some people hunt. Some people don't. Neither has the right to judge the
other, nor do they have the right to wish the other harm.
2) If you're really concerned about human overpopulation, you wouldn't be
wishing death upon others so flippantly.
Yeesh,
Rhonda
--
"The dew fell with a particularly sickening thud this morning."
Derek R. Larson
In article <4pgrnr$l...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>,
Odette Brown <au...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>carol hall (qc...@albany.net) writes:
>>And they get pissed off at other animals such as wolves,lynx,etc killing
>>
>
>
> If all of YOU who wants to hunt, why not go in the woods and hunt
> EACH OTHER, that would help the human overpopulation!
>
You know, if these are the best aruments y'all can come up with against
this (or any other) hunt, I don't think hunters have much to worry about.
Derek R. Larson
In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.10.8.3...@bbs.inferno.com>,
<sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
>
>There you go Odette. When I hear a hunter got shot by another I have to
>admit I think "one up for the animals". Kate
This type of response is why few people take the animal rights movement
seriously. You'll have a hard time convincing a majority of Americans
that it's a good thing when someone's child/father/sister is killed in a
hunting accident. Biocentrism only works for a while, usually until you
personally face the results of your arguments.
sham...@inferno.com
DR>In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.10.8.3...@bbs.inferno.com>,
DR> <sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
DR>>
DR>>There you go Odette. When I hear a hunter got shot by another I have to
DR>>admit I think "one up for the animals". Kate
DR>This type of response is why few people take the animal rights movement
DR>seriously. You'll have a hard time convincing a majority of Americans
DR>that it's a good thing when someone's child/father/sister is killed in a
DR>hunting accident. Biocentrism only works for a while, usually until you
DR>personally face the results of your arguments.
I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do the
hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
Cheryl L Perkins
: > In response to your article I would just like to state that hunting is a
: > lawful and yes, valuable tool in game management. The bears in question
: > are not endangered and hunting is used as a tool to keep the numbers from
: > increasing beyond the carrying capacity of the land. If the numbers
: > increase too much the bears will suffer from hunger and all the problems
: > that will go along with it.
: >
: >
: Excuse me, do you know what "carrying capacity" IS? It means that
: when the environment can't support as many bears as exist, they die off
: or don't reproduce at the same rate. Nature can take of herself just
: fine, and no foundation should grant any dying child the wish to take an
: innocent life.
`Die off'. Right, they do. From starvation or disease. Neither is an easy
death.
I, along with most humans, take lives just by existing. If I choose not
to use game or other animals, I have to use artificial products, some of
which are manufactured in places where the effluent poisons everything in
sight.
I eat meat. In winter, I wear leather footwear. I don't see any problem
with allowing a dying boy to hunt, but then, I give my money to research
to find cures.
Cheryl
--
Cheryl Perkins
cper...@calvin.stemnet.nf.ca
Walter Eric Johnson
sham...@inferno.com wrote:
: I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do the
: hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
Hunting seasons are usually in the fall when the offspring
are on their own. In some cases, where the offspring
winter with the mothers such as bears, I believe efforts
to avoid the sows with cubs are normally taken.
: The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
It's steel shot now.
Eric Johnson
Kathleen F. Ashley
In <4q3v1f$2...@news.tamu.edu> wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric
Really on both. So how come we have orphaned animals through the
mother being shot? As far as I have read some hunters are still using
lead shot.
Kate
Derek R. Larson
In article <4q3v1f$2...@news.tamu.edu>,
Walter Eric Johnson <wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu> wrote:
>sham...@inferno.com wrote:
>: I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do the
>: hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
>
>Hunting seasons are usually in the fall when the offspring
>are on their own. In some cases, where the offspring
>winter with the mothers such as bears, I believe efforts
>to avoid the sows with cubs are normally taken.
Game regulations usually dictate season, you're right, and in general
hunters are taught never to kill a female with dependent offspring when
the season is not in the fall. For deer in particular most states have an
annual "anterless" hunt that is intended to reduce the breeding
population, so it targets does and yearlings.
>
>: The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
>
>It's steel shot now.
Right. And the efforts to find replacements for lead
(steel,tin,bismuth,tungsten, etc.) in shotshells and for fishing weights
were funded by hunters and fishermen, and well before the laws came into
effect.
Just FYI, an organization called Ducks Unlimited (comprised primarily of
duck hunters) is the largest private wetland conservation organization in
the US, and does more to preserve waterfoul habitat than any non-federal
organization. How many "animal rights" groups are doing anything about
habitat degredation?
Derek R. Larson
In article <4q6h83$j...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
Kathleen F. Ashley <sham...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In <4q3v1f$2...@news.tamu.edu> wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric
>Johnson) writes:
>>
>>: I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do
>the
>>: hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
>>
>>Hunting seasons are usually in the fall when the offspring
>>are on their own. In some cases, where the offspring
>>winter with the mothers such as bears, I believe efforts
>>to avoid the sows with cubs are normally taken.
>>
>>
>>It's steel shot now.
>
>mother being shot? As far as I have read some hunters are still using
>lead shot.
Where are you reading this? Lead shot and fishing weights were banned by
the EPA; you can still use lead shot over land in some states, but not
over water.
Do you have a credible source to cite for your "orphan" claim? Numbers?
What species? Hmm?
Derek R. Larson
In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.13.14.14...@bbs.inferno.com>,
<sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
>
>I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do the
>hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
Yes.
>
>The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
Yes.
Need more info? Learn something about hunting and hunters before you
badmouth them. Take a look at a book called "Beyond Fair Chase: The
Ethic and Spirit of Hunting." It's probably in your local library.
RFerrie
Derek R. Larson wrote:
>
> In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.13.14.14...@bbs.inferno.com>,
> <sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
> >
> >I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do the
> >hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> >The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
>
> Yes.
>
> Need more info? Learn something about hunting and hunters before you
> badmouth them. Take a look at a book called "Beyond Fair Chase: The
> Ethic and Spirit of Hunting." It's probably in your local library.
paintball guns, or (b) be photographers? Cuz they want to kill!
sham...@inferno.com
DR>In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.13.14.14...@bbs.inferno.com>,
DR> <sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
DR>>
DR>>I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do the
DR>>hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
DR>Yes.
DR>>
DR>>The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
DR>Yes.
DR>Need more info? Learn something about hunting and hunters before you
DR>badmouth them. Take a look at a book called "Beyond Fair Chase: The
DR>Ethic and Spirit of Hunting." It's probably in your local library.
DR>--
DR>________________________________________________________________________
DR>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History
DR> "Nothing interesting occurred today..."
DR> -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
I think it maybe more appropriate if hunters read it. kate
sham...@inferno.com
DR>Just FYI, an organization called Ducks Unlimited (comprised primarily of
DR>duck hunters) is the largest private wetland conservation organization in
DR>the US, and does more to preserve waterfoul habitat than any non-federal
DR>organization. How many "animal rights" groups are doing anything about
DR>habitat degredation?
DR>--
DR>________________________________________________________________________
DR>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History
DR> "Nothing interesting occurred today..."
DR> -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
Yes, I have heard this many times. Better if they preserved it for
reasons other than to kill the animals upon it. I think that you will
find that groups are most definitely trying to preserve habitat for
animals in the wild. Maybe you are confusing animal rights with people
who believe in terrorist types attacks on laboratories to make their
point and release the suffering animals.
Kate
sham...@inferno.com
DR>In article <4q6h83$j...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
DR>Kathleen F. Ashley <sham...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
DR>>In <4q3v1f$2...@news.tamu.edu> wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric
DR>>Johnson) writes:
DR>>>
DR>>>sham...@inferno.com wrote:
DR>>>: I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do
DR>>>: hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
DR>>>
DR>>>are on their own. In some cases, where the offspring
DR>>>winter with the mothers such as bears, I believe efforts
DR>>>to avoid the sows with cubs are normally taken.
DR>>>
DR>>>: The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
DR>>>
DR>>
DR>>Really on both. So how come we have orphaned animals through the
DR>>mother being shot? As far as I have read some hunters are still using
DR>>lead shot.
DR>Where are you reading this? Lead shot and fishing weights were banned by
DR>the EPA; you can still use lead shot over land in some states, but not
DR>over water.
DR>Do you have a credible source to cite for your "orphan" claim? Numbers?
DR>What species? Hmm?
DR>--
DR>________________________________________________________________________
DR>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History
DR> "Nothing interesting occurred today..."
DR> -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
The media, magazines. Bears, mountain lions, deer. Kate
Ray
drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Derek R. Larson) wrote:
>In article <4q6h83$j...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>,
>Kathleen F. Ashley <sham...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In <4q3v1f$2...@news.tamu.edu> wej...@tam2000.tamu.edu (Walter Eric
>>Johnson) writes:
>>>
>>>sham...@inferno.com wrote:
>>>: I only said I think it, I didn't say I actually say it. However, do
>>the
>>>: hunters think of the parentless animals they leave behind?
>>>
>>>Hunting seasons are usually in the fall when the offspring
>>>are on their own. In some cases, where the offspring
>>>winter with the mothers such as bears, I believe efforts
>>>to avoid the sows with cubs are normally taken.
>>>
>>>: The lead shot that pollute our waters and lands? Kate
>>>
>>>It's steel shot now.
>>
>>Really on both. So how come we have orphaned animals through the
>>mother being shot? As far as I have read some hunters are still using
>>lead shot.
>Where are you reading this? Lead shot and fishing weights were banned by
>the EPA; you can still use lead shot over land in some states, but not
>over water.
>Do you have a credible source to cite for your "orphan" claim? Numbers?
>What species? Hmm?
>--
>________________________________________________________________________
>Derek R. Larson Indiana University Dept. of History
> "Nothing interesting occurred today..."
> -Meriwether Lewis at Ft. Clatsop, Oregon, Jan.4th, 1806
Hey Derek,
The world is larger than just the United States.
Ray
Manga, Dudu, Ray & Rashida Girven, Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
A closed mouth gathers no feet.
John & Melinda Sheridan
Where, I believe, lead shot is still legal. Correct me if I'm wrong,
Ray. -Melinda
Derek R. Larson
In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.22.13.8...@bbs.inferno.com>,
<sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
>DR>>Really on both. So how come we have orphaned animals through the
>DR>>mother being shot? As far as I have read some hunters are still using
>DR>>lead shot.
>
>
>DR>Where are you reading this? Lead shot and fishing weights were banned by
>DR>the EPA; you can still use lead shot over land in some states, but not
>DR>over water.
>
>DR>Do you have a credible source to cite for your "orphan" claim? Numbers?
>DR>What species? Hmm?
>
>
>
>
>The media, magazines. Bears, mountain lions, deer. Kate
>
By "sources" I was requestinng the *names* of these magazines, media,
etc. so I could either verify them or write them off as agenda-driven
nutcakes. Lots of stuff sees print that can't be taken seriously. I
can provide EPA studies to back up my lead claims. Just saying "the
media" doesn't cut it Kate. People like Merrit Clifton (Animal People)
make up statistics and spread blatant lies to promote their animal rights
agenda-- unless you provide a credible source, I'll belive what my
experience, the EPA, and a good number of federal and state wildlife
managers have told me.
Derek R. Larson
In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.22.13.6...@bbs.inferno.com>,
<sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
[my bit on Ducks Unlimited snipped]
>
>
>Yes, I have heard this many times. Better if they preserved it for
>reasons other than to kill the animals upon it. I think that you will
>find that groups are most definitely trying to preserve habitat for
>animals in the wild. Maybe you are confusing animal rights with people
>who believe in terrorist types attacks on laboratories to make their
>point and release the suffering animals.
>
I know the difference between animal rights and animal liberation
organizations. There are non-sporting groups working on habitat
preseration, yes-- but Ducks Unlimited is by far the largest in terms of
donations and acres preserved, while other sporting groups (like Trout
Unlimited, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Pheasants Forever, the
American Federation of Fly Fishers, etc.) have been in general much more
productive in terms of volunteer work and donations to habitiat
creation/restoration than any of the "mainstream" animal rights
organizations, most of which are simply fighting a public relations and
propoganda war. You don't have to include people like the ALF to notice
this; Animal People and many other "animal rights" groups do *nothing* for
animals or habitat. Groups like the Nature Conservancy, National
Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, etc. that do work for habitat
preseravtion *also* support legal hunting. Look at their charters
sometime.
Derek R. Larson
In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.22.13.2...@bbs.inferno.com>,
<sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
>DR>Need more info? Learn something about hunting and hunters before you
>DR>badmouth them. Take a look at a book called "Beyond Fair Chase: The
>DR>Ethic and Spirit of Hunting." It's probably in your local library.
>
>
>
Boy Kate, with witty rejoinders like that in your arsenal I'd hate to meet
you at a hunting protest. You'd really make a stronger case if you knew a
little about the topics you've been complaining about. The book I
mentioned is published by an orgainzation called the Orion Institute,
which has thousands of members, and the book has sold many thousands of
copies. Material of a similar nature appears in most hunting/sporting
magazines, esp. in the work of Ted Kerasote, who writes predominantly for
Outdoor Life.
Since looking at a book seems too much for you, might I suggest a
magazine? The Winter 1996 issues of Orion: People and Nature (no
relation to the Orion Institue noted above) was a special issue on
hunting. Orion is a "nature" magazine that features the work of notable
folks like Barry Lopez, Terry Tempest-Williams, Annie Dillard, Gary
Snyder, etc., so it's hardly a "pro-hunting" publication. This issue
contains four articles about hunting, one by a hunter and three by
non-hunters, all exploring the very questions you've been raising, but
with more background and less emotion. Read it; you will probably learn
something and it might help you make a reasonable argument to support your
emotional claims.
sham...@inferno.com
Do you think the only hunters are in America? Kate
PetHostAT2
Derek, it's hard to take you seriously on unbiased sources today, when
yesterday you suggest a book titled "Beyond Fair Chase: The Ethic and
Spirit of Hunting."
sham...@inferno.com
I think we're about equal for sarcasm. Kate
Derek R. Larson
In article <31CC8B...@direct.ca>,
John & Melinda Sheridan <jshe...@direct.ca> wrote:
>> Manga, Dudu, Ray & Rashida Girven, Nanaimo, B.C. Canada
>> wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww
>> A closed mouth gathers no feet.
>
>Where, I believe, lead shot is still legal. Correct me if I'm wrong,
>Ray. -Melinda
I was under the impression that the Canadians banned it first. Anyone
know for sure?
Derek R. Larson
In article <tcpnntpd.16.6.23.12.22...@bbs.inferno.com>,
<sham...@inferno.com> wrote:
>Do you think the only hunters are in America? Kate
1) That's not very original; someone else already made the point.
2) Kate, you've cleary given up your attempts at posting anything of
substance to this thread; I assume that's because you don't have anything
to say that stems from anything other than your emotions or something you
"read somewhere" once.
3) This whole thread started off in relation to U.S. hunting regulations
and a U.S. hunter. Yes, there are different regs in other countries, and
yes, there are problems with poacers and such in other places, just like
there are here. If you'd like to bring Africa or the former Soviet Union
into the discussion, I know a bit about hunting law and practices in
West Africa and the Russian Far East for starters. Anything of substance
to offer?
Derek R. Larson
>In article <4qk8fl$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>PetHostAT2 <petho...@aol.com> wrote:
Why? Have you read it? It's a very well written tutorial in hunting
ethics that promotes a standard beyond the "fair chase" standard required
by law and custon in the U.S. I think it would a good place for most of
the people posting to start since they don't seem to know anything about
hunting. I'm not claiming it's the gospel truth for all hunters, just
that people who feel like posting ani-hunting propoganda in public places
should know a little about that of which they speak. (I also didn't claim
that "Beyond Fair Chase" was a source of data on wildlife management; I
suggested it as an introduction to hunting, as opposed to "I've read in
the media that...")
Pozewitz's book would be a good start and might add a little substance to
this "debate." I've read lots of anti-hunting "literature" and am
familiar with the arguments; they've not been well expressed here yet--
just lots of emotional blabber about "murder" and no substantial
arguments. The discussion in rec.wildlife last month was much better.
Ditto rec.hunting for that matter. The cat people appear to be
half-hearted. :)
BTW, my cat hunts.
sham...@inferno.com
Geesh I'm sorry that I repeated someone else's remark, actually I'd not
seen it until after I posted.
You know I would be a lot more impressed if Ducks Unlimited, etc.
actually preserved the land for the animals, not to ensure there are
animals available for their hunters to kill.
Kate
Walter Eric Johnson
Derek R. Larson (drla...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu) wrote:
: By "sources" I was requestinng the *names* of these magazines, media,
: etc. so I could either verify them or write them off as agenda-driven
: nutcakes. Lots of stuff sees print that can't be taken seriously. I
: can provide EPA studies to back up my lead claims. Just saying "the
: media" doesn't cut it Kate. People like Merrit Clifton (Animal People)
: make up statistics and spread blatant lies to promote their animal rights
: agenda-- unless you provide a credible source, I'll belive what my
: experience, the EPA, and a good number of federal and state wildlife
: managers have told me.
We even have non-lead fishing sinkers now.
Eric Johnson
Walter Eric Johnson
sham...@inferno.com wrote:
: Geesh I'm sorry that I repeated someone else's remark, actually I'd not
I think that, in general, results count for far more than
motives.
Even in the case of Ducks Unlimited, I have heard that a
pretty good percentage of members are not hunters or do
not hunt ducks very much.
One problem you have is that you see hunters as being
interested in the animals only for the purpose of killing
the animal. That is far from the truth. Most hunters
I've known have far greater feelings for the animals than
most non-hunters. The non-hunters, on the other hand,
tend to have little or no understanding at all of the
animals.
I grew up on a farm in the Texas Panhandle where pheasant
hunting is a pretty big deal. Most of our land was open
to pheasant hunting. We hunted it with our friends and
strangers could show up and ask for permission to hunt and
would usually be granted that permission with stipulations
not to hunt on parts of the farm where there were cattle.
But, on the farm we had one piece of land on which no
hunting for pheasants was allowed at all out of a sense
of fair play -- the pheasants had a refuge where they could
stay during hunting season with no worry about being
hunted. It had nothing with assuring the future
availability of pheasants -- that one area would not make
much of a difference for that. On days when pheasant
hunting was poor, it was always tempting to hunt that
area, but we didn't do it.
Eric Johnson
sham...@inferno.com
WE>sham...@inferno.com wrote:
WE>: Geesh I'm sorry that I repeated someone else's remark, actually I'd not
WE>: seen it until after I posted.
WE>:
WE>: You know I would be a lot more impressed if Ducks Unlimited, etc.
WE>: actually preserved the land for the animals, not to ensure there are
WE>: animals available for their hunters to kill.
WE>:
WE>I think that, in general, results count for far more than
WE>motives.
WE>Even in the case of Ducks Unlimited, I have heard that a
WE>pretty good percentage of members are not hunters or do
WE>not hunt ducks very much.
WE>One problem you have is that you see hunters as being
WE>interested in the animals only for the purpose of killing
WE>the animal. That is far from the truth. Most hunters
WE>I've known have far greater feelings for the animals than
WE>most non-hunters. The non-hunters, on the other hand,
WE>tend to have little or no understanding at all of the
WE>animals.
WE>I grew up on a farm in the Texas Panhandle where pheasant
WE>hunting is a pretty big deal. Most of our land was open
WE>to pheasant hunting. We hunted it with our friends and
WE>strangers could show up and ask for permission to hunt and
WE>would usually be granted that permission with stipulations
WE>not to hunt on parts of the farm where there were cattle.
WE>But, on the farm we had one piece of land on which no
WE>hunting for pheasants was allowed at all out of a sense
WE>of fair play -- the pheasants had a refuge where they could
WE>stay during hunting season with no worry about being
WE>hunted. It had nothing with assuring the future
WE>availability of pheasants -- that one area would not make
WE>much of a difference for that. On days when pheasant
WE>hunting was poor, it was always tempting to hunt that
WE>area, but we didn't do it.
WE>Eric Johnson
Please don't patronise me. Kate
Walter Eric Johnson
sham...@inferno.com wrote:
: Please don't patronise me. Kate
I'm not patronizing you, Kate. That would be completely
contrary to my nature.
I was telling you that you don't understand what you
are talking about. That is not patronization.
Eric Johnson
sham...@inferno.com
WE>sham...@inferno.com wrote:
WE>
WE>: Please don't patronise me. Kate
WE>I'm not patronizing you, Kate. That would be completely
WE>contrary to my nature.
WE>I was telling you that you don't understand what you
WE>are talking about. That is not patronization.
WE>Eric Johnson
Oh forgive me. Kate