From: todd@refrig.dixie.com (Todd H.)
Subject: Deliberate misnomers
Organization: the Bear Creek Tinkerer's Society and Social Club
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 1992 18:42:23 GMT

>spp@zabriskie.berkeley.edu (Steve Pope) writes:

>This is a really inane bunch of drivel.

>The government programs to erdicate mountain lions consisted
>of HUNTING them for a bounty.

>"poaching" is also a form of HUNTING.

>The question is whether HUNTERS affected these populations;
>the FACT is they did; now the hunters are saying "no those
>weren't REALLY hunters shooting at those animals..."

Again the AR propaganda machine attempts to muddy the water.  When it comes
to discussions about hunting, the target is modern sport hunting, yet you 
use a broader definition, one that *DOESN'T FIT*, because the definition that
*DOES FIT* (now here's the good part) DOESN'T WORK for you.

Facts are that modern sport hunting has NEVER caused or even nearly caused
the extinction or endangerment of any species.  Fact is that modern sport
hunters have RESCUED the Canada Goose, all the ducks, whitetail deer, desert
bighorn sheep, the bobwhite quail, and too many other species to list here.

Poachers aren't hunters, they're POACHERS.  Why don't I see poacher turn-in
bumper stickers on the ARF's cars?  Why do I see them on hunting trucks?
Could it be that hunters don't like poachers, that perhaps we work HARDER
than the ARFs to see that they are put away?  I personally spent over one
hundred hours to get a poacher here in Georgia tossed out of Ducks Unlimited
and Quail Unlimited.  To my disappointment, QU didn't feel that shooting more
than six times his limit, using lead shot, while trespassing, was enough 
excuse to give him the boot.  Therefore, QU is now off my list of charitable
organizations.

Let's try your quote again, only this time let's see if it sounds any better:

>"arson" is also a form of ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISM.

>The question is whether ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS burned those buildings;
>the FACT is they did; now the animal rights activists are saying "no those
>weren't REALLY animal rights activists burning those people out of thier
>homes and businesses..."

Actually, it's much scarier than the above quote would say, because the AR
movement has not stepped forward to disinherit the arsonists - instead they
send out pleas to thier fellows to "help these poor prisoners, who didn't 
really do anything so bad, they just burned a few buildings, that's all."

If you're really here to attack modern sport hunting, then do it.  Don't 
weasel around trying to blame us for the atrocities of a bygone age - the
burning that the AR movement is doing is happening NOW!  The market hunters
who used punt guns to kill 100-200 ducks with one shot while they slept on
the water isn't part of modern sport hunting, nor will it ever be.  And though
it may come as a major surprise to one so simple-mindedly ignoring the facts,
the reason they are gone is because MODERN SPORT HUNTERS MADE THEM STOP.

Come on, I'll take you on on the atrocities of the modern sport hunter on our
natural resources - you give me an example of an atrocity - but be sure that
you're talking about modern sport hunting, not poaching or some out-of-date
market hunting practice that sport hunters worked to get stopped.

I guess the 1.4 billion dollars a year that sport hunters contribute to our
natural resources doesn't compare with the few million that the AR people
pump into our already nearly-useless political system.  Which of the two
groups do you think is doing the animals more good, the guys who are protecting
millions of acres of land for both game and non-game animals, or the people
teaching civil disobedience classes and lining the pockets of senators?

-- 
Todd++;
------------------
todd@refrig.dixie.com
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals