PETA is after a guy in CA - article mentions AH

[mark-hunter]

@Rum Runner
Well, the comment respectfully noted!


But, it now depends on the meaning of the word kill. What does it mean?

Also, allow me for possible misunderstanding in perception of the words, because english is not my native lingo.
So, in my understanding, and ethical perception, I would say:

To "Kill" is legal. To kill the enemy in battle, or to kill the game in hunting.
To "murder" is illegal.
(So good for you, you haven't murdered those poor fish!)
Well done!


What we actually do with fish? Well, we just go fishing, nothing more then that.
So my guess is, you have fished those fish, right?
But even if you have "killed them", it would still be considered as legal and ethical act? Right?

Joke aside,
With all this animal rights protection laws, when it comes to fishing things are more flexible.
For example, we are not supposed to torture animals, but using live baits for fishing is legal, no restriction. (in my place) Although there have been opponents to this idea.
So I can put live shrimp, or live squid and use it as a live bait on the hook.

Bottom line, fishing will always be regarded (or in most of cases) as acceptablem social behavior. I dont see much fuss about it in media.

@rookhawk
Thanks for earlier comment, we were typing same time!

 

[BSO Dave]

Bottom line, fishing will always be regarded (or in most of cases) as acceptablem social behavior. I dont see much fuss about it in media.

Don't bet your next paycheck on that! NEVER, and I mean NEVER underestimate what well-funded lunatics are capable of doing. PETA has already made several attempts in recent years to ban both fishing, the use of live bait, and keeping aquarium fish as a hobby. They did a multi-million dollar "pay for their narrative scientific study" making the contentions that fish feel pain and suffer during the act of being caught.

Fishing | PETA

It may be a sport, but fish do feel pain and suffering. Learn about how you can fight against fishing in your area today.

www.peta.org

 

[Saul]

It is actually rather surprising that fishing has not come to enjoy even a similar level of infamy as hunting in the general public. It could partly be because people believe that as less intelligent, non-mammalians, fish are incapable of the same physical and emotional responses as other animals. That could also be why there is such opposition to the killing of whales, dolphins, and, more recently, octopus.

 

[rookhawk]

Don't bet your next paycheck on that! NEVER, and I mean NEVER underestimate what well-funded lunatics are capable of doing. PETA has already made several attempts in recent years to ban both fishing, the use of live bait, and keeping aquarium fish as a hobby. They did a multi-million dollar "pay for their narrative scientific study" making the contentions that fish feel pain and suffer during the act of being caught.

Fishing | PETA

It may be a sport, but fish do feel pain and suffering. Learn about how you can fight against fishing in your area today.

www.peta.org

A dear friend of mine was a professional fly fishing guide and a hell of a human being. He was also a leftist/marxist so we made a strange pair when we got to discussing politics.

One thing he warned me about fishing that I'll pass on to this group. "Rookhawk, ALWAYS take a fish home with you." The animal rights people will someday say that fishing is the cruelest of sports because we inflict harm upon an animal for pleasure, and with no evidence of utility. His emphasis is that we should derive some utility from our fishing and avoid 100% catch-and-release fly fishing because in the long run C&R 100% of the time is the hardest position to defend ethically.

I think he was spot on. We don't think about that much when we do C&R, but in the long run hunting is ethical because of compelling utility being an argument that outweighs brief animal suffering. (e.g. quick death, we eat the meat. Or quick death, the land is rid of excess predation in the name of conservation) Fishing opens up other cruelty-without-utility arguments for the left to exploit.

 

[Rum Runner]

A dear friend of mine was a professional fly fishing guide and a hell of a human being. He was also a leftist/marxist so we made a strange pair when we got to discussing politics.

One thing he warned me about fishing that I'll pass on to this group. "Rookhawk, ALWAYS take a fish home with you." The animal rights people will someday say that fishing is the cruelest of sports because we inflict harm upon an animal for pleasure, and with no evidence of utility. His emphasis is that we should derive some utility from our fishing and avoid 100% catch-and-release fly fishing because in the long run C&R 100% of the time is the hardest position to defend ethically.

I think he was spot on. We don't think about that much when we do C&R, but in the long run hunting is ethical because of compelling utility being an argument that outweighs brief animal suffering. (e.g. quick death, we eat the meat. Or quick death, the land is rid of excess predation in the name of conservation) Fishing opens up other cruelty-without-utility arguments for the left to exploit.

Agreed! Forgot to mention, they were delicious! I'm grateful for each fish (they were Browns; caught in the high desert here in Nevada. Absolutely beautiful). For me, they were a gift from God...(dare I mention). That experience is etched in my memory forever. I can scarcely imagine a more beautiful day. Is there anyway the antis could appreciate such an experience?

So, I disagree with the antis on many fronts. I read their propaganda, such as @BSO Dave posted above, and I wonder what planet these people are from? It's almost too easy to pick their "logic" apart; so absurd their positions. BTW, they have to eat, right? So what makes them feel so good about killing plants? Shucks, plants might have feelings too.

 

[BSO Dave]

It's almost too easy to pick their "logic" apart; so absurd their positions. BTW, they have to eat, right? So what makes them feel so good about killing plants? Shucks, plants might have feelings too.

Great point! These hypocrites lose their collective minds over a native Inuit person killing a seal for food, but I have yet to see a tear-filled commercial on TV with Sarah McLachlan sadly singing in the background mourning over the millions upon million of rodents, insects, reptiles, and the like that are killed every day by commercial crop harvests and pesticides. It is strangely ironic that these "PETA" type folks only seem to really push their crusade for the cute, cuddly, and colorful creatures on this planet. According to PETA if you are field rat, I guess you are F@#KED!

 

[Newboomer]

It's time to fight fire with fire. For every one of their lies we have to forcefully throw it right back in their faces. If they realize we are not going to hide and kowtow to their anti this and that raving they will back off.

Comparing them to all the conservation organizations what have they done? How much have they contributed to the RMEF, Wild Sheep Foundation, Ducks Unlimited and so many others? Have they helped establish habitat, assisted in relocating species, conducted any studies? I think the answer is a resounding NO. They hide behind a lot of cowardly rhetoric and do absolutely nothing constructive.

 

[IvW]

I take it most have not seen the actual video footage of this hunt.

A disgrace for hunting as a whole, so much ammunition for the antis it is scary....how stupid, the hunter, videographer, outfitter and anybody else who was part of this hunt to allow this footage to be published on social media is beyond comprehension....yes shit happens and things do not always work out as planned but for God's sake have common sense before allowing footage such as this to be spread on social media.....you just shoot, hunting, yourself and all other hunters in the foot....

Why published footage was not restricted to after the first shot only these idiots will know, period....

Bunch of idiots all who where involved in this hunt.....

 

[Rum Runner]

Remember, negotiations can go both ways.
Looks like he already has a pretty nice setup in the garage.
It would be a question of "what to give up" to get it in the house...

Great point! These hypocrites lose their collective minds over a native Inuit person killing a seal for food, but I have yet to see a tear-filled commercial on TV with Sarah McLachlan sadly singing in the background mourning over the millions upon million of rodents, insects, reptiles, and the like that are killed every day by commercial crop harvests and pesticides. It is strangely ironic that these "PETA" type folks only seem to really push their crusade for the cute, cuddly, and colorful creatures on this planet. According to PETA if you are field rat, I guess you are F@#KED!

Well put! Honestly, it's as though the lunatics are finally running the asylum. I mean it. There's some really crazy things going on. But, I look back on my safari last year, and it was and is as real as it gets. The natives who got the protein; real for them too. The money I spent there, and the (however small...) boost to the local economy...real. The business I gave to the taxidermist, and all the agents in-between, that's real too. What I mean is, as a hunter and fisherman, I put my money where my mouth is. The differences between the ideologies is tangible for me.

 

[Alistair]

I personally believe that the worst thing you can do as hunters is hide away and pretend it doesn't happen.

As long as hunting is visible, people you know do it and it's out in the light as a legitimate pursuit, it's normalised. It's difficult as the casual, uninterested person to agree with PETA that hunting is evil and should be banned if 'Uncle Phil' does it, your next door neighbour brings vension to your BBQs and you see that the mainstream media will quite calmly talk about taking a deer or a rabbit for meat on a cooking show. How can this visible activity, widely accepted by people that you know and trust, be that bad?

This is also true if you're a politician. Do you ostracise a wide and outspoken group of voters? I think not.

The issue arises when it becomes niche, marginalised. It's a lot easier to make a snap judgment on hunting if you've never seen it done, none of your friends or family do it, you've never eaten game and the only exposure you have is through PETAs agenda.

In the US, hunting is still a 'normal' pass time. In Europe, it's not. Thus (IMO) stems many of our issues.

 

[Rum Runner]

I take it most have not seen the actual video footage of this hunt.

A disgrace for hunting as a whole, so much ammunition for the antis it is scary....how stupid, the hunter, videographer, outfitter and anybody else who was part of this hunt to allow this footage to be published on social media is beyond comprehension....yes shit happens and things do not always work out as planned but for God's sake have common sense before allowing footage such as this to be spread on social media.....you just shoot, hunting, yourself and all other hunters in the foot....

Why published footage was not restricted to after the first shot only these idiots will know, period....

Bunch of idiots all who where involved in this hunt.....

I've seen the footage (and I survived). Agreed, it's awful, won't help and will jerk a tear or two. Getting eaten alive by lions is a tough way to go too. Just saying.

 

[IvW]

I've seen the footage (and I survived). Agreed, it's awful, won't help and will jerk a tear or two. Getting eaten alive by lions is a tough way to go too. Just saying.

So lets not give them footage of when things do not go as planned, simple...even a seasoned hunter would not approve.....

If a lion chows you, that is part of the deal we all accept as hunters.....

 

[Rum Runner]

The larger point is, we all ARE part of life and death. If you consume, you're part of it. Sometimes it doesn't go according to plan, such as in the video, but there is an overriding code of ethics and respect. At least hunters are up front about it.

 

[firehuntfish]

His emphasis is that we should derive some utility from our fishing and avoid 100% catch-and-release fly fishing because in the long run C&R 100% of the time is the hardest position to defend ethically.

You mentioned fly fishing, catch & release, and I just couldn't stay away.... Especially since a Marxist said it..!

Two main points to be made regarding the above sentiment:

1) As hunters and fishermen we need to stop wasting breath on arguing with the fanatics. It's been correctly stated a 1,000 times over that the winning of hearts and minds comes through the education of the vast majority of the population who do not hunt or fish themselves, yet who are not necessarily opposed to it, and are therefore undecided on the issues. These are the folks that we need to educate on the benefits of hunting, fishing, and managing our wildlife and habitats.

2) As far as defending any behavior "ethically" we need keep in mind that "ethics" are subjective concepts prone to reflect the given values and norms of any particular society. We as a society set our own ethics.... If we are weak in our resolve to set and maintain our own ethics, the radical minority will determine them for us as is occurring before our very eyes.

In specific regard to the ethics of fishing, I will absolutely concede that I am addicted to the challenge of fooling a creature with a brain the size of a pea into eating an imitation of a fish or insect that I created out of foam, elk hair, or bird feathers. I have no doubt in my mind that the fish doesn't appreciate or necessarily enjoy being fooled and dragged through the water by the face. I know this because they pull back when you hook them.... Still somehow, I sleep pretty good at night because I think at the end of the day, the fish have imposed more mental torture on me than any physical torture I have ever imposed on them.

In all seriousness, I actually never gave the subject much thought until I heard about the PETA nonsense with fishing a few years back. Just because it's PETA and I think they are a bunch of hypocritical domestic terrorists, I have extensively researched the science regarding fish and their ability to perceive pain. The vast majority of the reputable science that I found seems to be fairly consistent in suggesting that fish have a very simple central nervous system. The nerves themselves seem to have very few receptors which are responsible for transmitting "pain" as we humans perceive it. The science suggests that fish are much morel likely to feel a "pressure" or "discomfort" when they are hooked or speared. They feel enough so that their instinctual flight or fight responses kick in for survival, but "pain" as we know it is not experienced anywhere on the same level as you or I would feel if we were hooked in the mouth, scooped up with a gaff hook, or eaten alive by a bear.

When you add common sense into the equation, it would appear logical that nature would have such a mechanism installed for creatures who are not on the top of the food chain. Otherwise, it would seem particularly cruel for nature to allow such horrible pain and suffering by creatures who's main purpose on earth is to be food for other creatures. Similar studies have been done with more complex creatures that are common prey animals with very similar findings. Most hooved and winged creatures have simple nervous systems especially in regard to the number and sensitivity of neurons present as compared to human beings. Pain or no pain argument aside, when you consider a kill with a rifle bullet or well-place arrow as opposed to being torn apart alive by a pack of hyenas, our harvest methods as humans are the most ethical and least traumatic among all of the predators of the animal kingdom.

 

[norfolk shooter]

no, he’s dumber than that. several different photos surfaced. His. Outfitter. His hunting buddy. Leaks from multiple cameras.

Dentist Walter Palmer who killed Cecil the Lion 'is back hunting'

Walter Palmer, 60, from Minnesota, is believed to have made his return to trophy hunting after an image of him next to a slaughtered wild sheep in Mongolia appeared on social media.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I hate to say this but if you read the article it doesn't say that is him for sure. Its fake news. The antis are at the propaganda game again. If they had a photo of him with his face they would use it trust me.

Like many hunters, I will not post any pictures related to hunting on the internet. I will also not post firearms pictures but that is about the government. I fear losing business if someone were to find out that I am a hunter. I do not bring it up unless someone else does first. That is why I so value having access to these forums. With that said, I do think that sharing hunting pictures should be relegated to dedicated hunting sites. There really is no point posting something all over social media that you know will stir up opposition and potential real world consequences for you and your family.

The problem is because this is an open forum the antis troll here to find dirt of people. Once again youll have to take my word for it (I have fallen fowl of this).

 

[norfolk shooter]

Woah, I respectfully disagree. Check out this photo:

Yep, I killed those fish. No apologies. Really, please, don't we all "kill"?

Dont worry the antis in the UK have made a start on fishing too

Nice trout though bet they tasted nice

 

[norfolk shooter]

Just to be fair on the social media discussion, yes a lot of photos have been pulled from Facebook by anti-hunters, but this site is also a form of social media that is visible by anyone. A photo ending up in anti-hunter’s hands from Facebook is a bit of luck. I suspect anti-hunters patrol this site as actively as we do for the opposite reasons. They get photos, opinions, lots of material to use directly. This hunter actually posted his hunt report here with his real name, which I would suspect gave them a good starting point if they hadn’t already decided to go after him. https://www.africahunting.com/threa...phant-hunt-with-umziki-hunting-safaris.54326/
My point with this is to be careful what we put out there anywhere.

Made that mistake and got the shirt for it too. Like I have said already they troll this site

 

[Saul]

The problem is because this is an open forum the antis troll here to find dirt of people. Once again youll have to take my word for it (I have fallen fowl of this).

Antis attacked you for something you posted on here?

 

[norfolk shooter]

Antis attacked you for something you posted on here?

They twisted the words and used it in the press. But because its an open forum I have no legal leg to stand on

 

[Saul]

They twisted the words and used it in the press. But because its an open forum I have no legal leg to stand on

I feel for you, that is horrible. Has it caused any financial or personal hardships? I hate to hear of another member suffering at the hands of the antis.

I see that you are in the UK. Your press is certainly very hostile and downright vindictive to hunters so I am not surprised that they went after you.