PETA goes fishing for sympathy [Archive]

john_childs

2005-03-16, 09:06 AM

Methinks they're anling in the wrong fishing hole. :)

PETA to Vice President Cheney: Show Some Reel Compassion

In a recent interview, Vice President Dick Cheney said that he'll be more concerned with the tackle box than the ballot box in 2008. In response, PETA has sent a letter to the vice president, urging him to swear off lip-ripping and take up a heart-healthy hobby like hiking or boating (without the lethal weapons) instead.

Scientists have proved that fish are intelligent animals who feel pain just like cats and dogs. Truly compassionate conservatives should treat animals with kindness, recognizing that even animals who come in different "packaging" are no less worthy of our respect and kindness.

Plus, sitting around with a fishing pole isn't exactly what the doctor ordered for heart patients like Mr. Cheney--more physically active pursuits will help both him and marine animals live longer lives.

Whether for his own health or for the health of fish, we're calling on the vice president to enjoy nature when he retires without harming its inhabitants.

PETA's letter to the vice president follows.

The full letter is here: PETA to Vice President Cheney: Show Some Reel Compassion (http://www.fishinghurts.com/feat-DickCheney.asp)
Be sure to read the PDF version of the letter (fax) they sent to Vice President Cheney. It's a funny read in a vegan kookdom kind of way. :)

JJuggle

2005-03-16, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by john_childs
It's a funny read in a vegan kookdom kind of way. :)Whenever I see people fishing I always root for the fish. :)

In a funny kookdom kind of way, I don't find that letter kooky. If I believed in a God and if I believed that that God wanted us to live compassionate lives then I would believe that sport fishing was against His law.

That said I think Dick Cheney is about as likely to give up fishing as he is to teach a business ethics course. This particular PETA campaign is unlikely to gain them anything besides ridicule.

pdc

2005-03-16, 12:46 PM

Truly compassionate conservatives should treat animals with kindness,

Yeah you don't see too many liberals abusing animals. :rolleyes:

I didn't know that fishing was a partisan thing.

pdc

2005-03-16, 03:51 PM

John Kerry

bombsquad

2005-03-16, 04:11 PM

Originally posted by pdc
John Kerry

We sometimes work with the Secret Service on presidential details and such, and let me just say... There is a guy about 1000 feet away, with a cage full of birds, just waiting for the signal to let 'em go. No real sport in that one...
But that happens when any of those high up gentlemen go shootin', not just John Kerry. I know our Vice President got the same hunting treatment...

JJuggle

2005-03-16, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by bombsquad
There is a guy about 1000 feet away, with a cage full of birds, just waiting for the signal to let 'em go. No real sport in that one...Yes, but do the poor dumb politicians know that there's a guy 1000 feet away with a cage full of birds?

yoopers

2005-03-16, 05:46 PM

Originally quoted by john_childs
Scientists have proved that fish are intelligent animals

Aw, c'mon guys. I'm surprised that no one jumped on this yet...

Of course fish are smart, they swim around all day in schools.

zod

2005-03-16, 06:18 PM

Originally posted by yoopers
Aw, c'mon guys. I'm surprised that no one jumped on this yet...

Of course fish are smart, they swim around all day in schools.

*rimshot*

I don't know what's more entertaining, that joke or PETA :D

DigitalDave

2005-03-16, 06:34 PM

mmmmm ... fish

»‹(((º› ‹º)))›«

I love fishing.
I been 'hooked' on it since I was a baby.

I have a ruler taped to the side of box for quick measurement.
(to ensure a quick release when too small to eat)

Unfortunately, most my catch are 'releases' these days.
I believe it is due to 'others' not following 'guidelines'.

I even talk to them, when I'm unbarbin' them.
They are beautifully colored :D

Sigurd

2005-03-16, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by yoopers
Aw, c'mon guys. I'm surprised that no one jumped on this yet...

Of course fish are smart, they swim around all day in schools.

I just played the "badum dum CRASH!" on my drums right now...just for you. :D

john_childs

2005-03-17, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by JJuggle
Whenever I see people fishing I always root for the fish. :)

In a funny kookdom kind of way, I don't find that letter kooky. If I believed in a God and if I believed that that God wanted us to live compassionate lives then I would believe that sport fishing was against His law.

It is kooky because of the way they present their arguments. How do you say that fish are smarter than dogs and keep a straight face unless you're a kook. The only smarts a fish has are instincts. Trying to equate fish to primates is also kooky. Just your typical kooky vegan arguments against hunting or butchering anything that breathes.

They aren't going to stop people from fishing or eating fish. They'd do better by educating people on the proper ways to do catch and release so that the fish have a lower mortality. They could try to get fishermen to keep what they catch and only catch what they need. Trying to convince fishermen not to fish at all is not going to get them much progress.

Is fishing with a line and hook better or worse than dragging a big net behind a boat and scooping up everything in the way? Since the PETA people are vegans I suspect they are against fishing with nets too. Nets have to be traumatic to the fish and the nets kill indiscriminately.

Jethro

2005-03-17, 12:20 AM

Originally posted by JJuggle
If I believed in a God and if I believed that that God wanted us to live compassionate lives then I would believe that sport fishing was against His law.
[/B]
Being one who does believe in a God, I agree with you, but not for the sake of the fish. I believe it should be against God's law for anything that pits a fully-evolved human against an animal with a brain the size of a kernel of corn to be called a sport. :)

john_childs

2005-03-17, 12:56 AM

Whether for his own health or for the health of fish, we're calling on the vice president to enjoy nature when he retires without harming its inhabitants.

PETA also disrespects Vice President Cheney and the office of the Vice President by failing to properly capitalize "Vice President" in the above quote from their press release announcement.

2005-03-17, 01:34 AM

PETA makes me mad. Its one thing to be veagan, but its just like religion; practice it, but don't wave it in my face. Fish do have feelings, but catching them with a hook and then leting the suffocate is a lot nicer than, lets say cave man spearfishing where you stab the fish, rip it in half alive and eat it. Fish (shellfish too) and ham are the only meats I eat, not because i think it is creul, but because i just dont like cow or chicken.

***PETA= People who Eat Tasty Animals!!!!***

JJuggle

2005-03-17, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by john_childs
PETA also disrespects Vice President Cheney and the office of the Vice President by failing to properly capitalize "Vice President" in the above quote from their press release announcement. Would that be the fellow who told a United States Senator to "F*ck yourself" and who on his way to a tailgate party ended up at a holocaust memorial?

http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/images/2005/01/28/image670051x.jpg

bugman

2005-03-17, 03:36 AM

Leave it to Raphael to take the discussion into a Cheney bashing.

I don't care if fish can feel or not. If I had the slightest interest in fishing, there is no way in hell any argument from PETA about fish having feelings would keep me from doing it. The only time fishing is fun is when you have one fighting for its life on the other end of the hook. Sitting on the shore or in a boat for hours to experience that just isn't something that I am willing to do.

That being said, I love vegetarians. Everything I eat is a vegetarian.

JJuggle

2005-03-17, 03:51 AM

Originally posted by bugman
Leave it to Raphael to take the discussion into a Cheney bashing. I was just responding to John's conservative whining over what was mere stylistic carelessness. If you search the PETA site you can find at least one instance where Al Gore was referred to as the "vice president" in lower case.

Frankly it was a silly comment given the respectful tone of the letter. Respect, yes, the Office of the Vice President deserves, but which the man I think does not.

Anyway, you say that bugman as though it's a bad thing. ;)

john_childs

2005-03-17, 04:19 AM

Originally posted by JJuggle
I was just responding to John's conservative whining over what was mere stylistic carelessness. If you search the PETA site you can find at least one instance where Al Gore was referred to as the "vice president" in lower case.
It is a common mistake to not properly capitalize "Vice President" or "President". I'm sure the person who writes the press releases for PETA knows better but just made an honest mistake. I should have put a smiley after my post. It's just too fun to poke fun at grammar errors or spelling errors in a public press release.

I don't recall the exact exchange that prompted the now famous "Go F yourself" response. I seem to recall that the Honorable Senator Leahy made some sort of low blow or crude comment that preceded the retort by the Vice President. I say right on to the Vice President there. That's exactly how the Honorable Senator Leahy should be addressed given the ad hominem rhetoric he spewed out during the campaign.

Ed Hansen

2005-03-17, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by john_childs
.....I don't recall the exact exchange that prompted the now famous "Go F yourself" response.....

I say that kind of stuff all the time, but then again, I'm a correctional worker who spends 40+ hours a week with thugs who's are only religious when they are trying to get family/friends/lonely women/pen-pals to send them money, or convince their lawyer/judge that they should be out of this maximum security prison yesterday.

The point to be made about the statement (IMHO) is that it was uddered by a guy who is co-leading the party that represents all the goody-two-shoe, religiuos-right that believe only OTHER people talk like that, never us. Kinda like that video of "Dubya" flipping off the camera when he thought it was turned off.

I feel kinda sorry for the religious right; they don't know, or even want to know that they were/are being used. For example, many expected Roe v/s Wade would be overturned..... Not much has happend on that whole front.

No one likes to be called ingnorant, but with a little homework about their present day heros, they wouldn't be and they would remove support for the present administation. But why do homework when they can just close the door, pull the blinds down, and do the same things that those "damned liberals" actually admit to.

..........Time for another beer, and one NOT brewed by coors.

(feel free to quote me---I know some of you will.) :)

---------We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread subject...

yoopers

2005-03-17, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by john_childs
It is a common mistake to not properly capitalize "Vice President" or "President". I'm sure the person who writes the press releases for PETA...
John,

Did you mean to say, "I'm sure the person who writes the press releases for peta..."

yoopers

2005-03-17, 03:11 PM

Originally posted by DK
Fish do have feelings, but catching them with a hook and then leting the suffocate is a lot nicer than, lets say cave man spearfishing where you stab the fish, rip it in half alive and eat it.
The boys and I were watching Wild America last Sunday about brown bears in Alaska fishing for salmon. Their fishing method included doing a belly flop on a fish in the river, sinking their teeth into it to carry it to shore, then setting the thing down on the rocks and ripping it apart and eating it while it flopped around under the bear's paw. Yummy!

B

Jethro

2005-03-17, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by yoopers
The boys and I were watching Wild America last Sunday about brown bears in Alaska fishing for salmon. Their fishing method included doing a belly flop on a fish in the river, sinking their teeth into it to carry it to shore, then setting the thing down on the rocks and ripping it apart and eating it while it flopped around under the bear's paw. Yummy!

B

I'm sure if bears had opposable thumbs, they would use a knife, fork and linen napkin like the rest of us.

Maybe even a squirt of lemon.

underdog

2005-03-17, 06:35 PM

I tried to find a link that someone sent me a couple of weeks ago but I musta deleted it. It was a story about the company that makes gummi bear and gummi worm candies. They had come out with another gummi product that depicted road-kill animals. The photo I saw showed a snake with a flattened section that had tire tread marks on it. PETA came out with a statement deriding the candy maker for their depiction of dead animals. I think the folks at PETA need to get-a-life. How's anyone supposed to take them seriously if they haven't got anything better to do than go after the gummi bear company. In a way, I'm surprised that they haven't gone after them before. Imagine the horror on the face of the president of PETA as he watches his children biting the heads of gummi bears.:eek:

JJuggle

2005-03-17, 07:19 PM

Originally posted by underdog
I tried to find a link that someone sent me a couple of weeks ago but I musta deleted it. It was a story about the company that makes gummi bear and gummi worm candies. They had come out with another gummi product that depicted road-kill animals. The photo I saw showed a snake with a flattened section that had tire tread marks on it. PETA came out with a statement deriding the candy maker for their depiction of dead animals. I think the folks at PETA need to get-a-life. How's anyone supposed to take them seriously if they haven't got anything better to do than go after the gummi bear company. In a way, I'm surprised that they haven't gone after them before. Imagine the horror on the face of the president of PETA as he watches his children biting the heads of gummi bears.:eek: Apparently PETA did complain but as per the below was not the instigating factor in the company discontinuing the candy line. Neither of the words "Gummi" or "Trolli", by the way, yields hits on the PETA website.

Is there a proscribed way to eat a chocolate bunny humanely?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cruelty to Candy Animals

190 words
7 March 2005
NJBIZ
3
Volume 18; Issue 10; ISSN: 15404161
English
Copyright (c) 2005 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Animal rights groups performed a drive-by and helped knock off Kraft Foods' new Road Kill Gummi Candy. This post-traumatic product from Kraft's Trolli division consisted of partly squished-looking fruit-flavored snakes, chickens and squirrels with tread marks across their bodies-a distinct departure from the look of the company's cute Gummi Bears.

It seems that Kraft, which in November announced plans to sell off its Trolli and other candy brands to The Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. for approximately $1.5 billion, halted production after the Trenton-based New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals threatened a boycott, complaining that the candy sends the wrong message to kids. The company didn't mean to be insensitive, says Jim Low, a Kraft brand manager.

Lisa Lange, spokeswoman for the Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, reports that the organization received "hundreds of e-mails from people who were upset about the candy." She adds that PETA, which also complained to Kraft, is glad that the food maker rethought its strategy.

Copyright Snowden Publications, Inc. Mar 7, 2005

yoopers

2005-03-17, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by underdog
I think the folks at PETA need to get-a-life. How's anyone supposed to take them seriously if they haven't got anything better to do than go after the gummi bear company.

Extremes at both ends tend keep everyone in check, i.e., the NRA and their opponents, conservatives and liberals, Raphael and Bruce, etc. After awhile, you sort of grow to love the other side for keeping your activism alive and giving it purpose.

Hey R, I love you, man! :)

Bruce

JJuggle

2005-03-17, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by yoopers
Hey R, I love you, man! :)Bite me.

johnfoss

2005-03-18, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by yoopers
Their fishing method included doing a belly flop on a fish in the river, sinking their teeth into it to carry it to shore, then setting the thing down on the rocks and ripping it apart and eating it while it flopped around under the bear's paw. We watched bears do similar with salmon in Alaska. Except these salmon were swimming upstream full of eggs. Not much meat on those fish, only eggs. We watched the bears squish down on the fish, making thousands of orange eggs squirt out. They would lap up the eggs and the fish would be ignored, sometimes to slip back into the water and continue "mindlessly" upstream.

Anyway, I'm with Bugman on fishing. If that's somebody else's idea of a "sport," fine. It ain't mine.

PETA are all about publicity. I don't believe they are actively taking any action to get people to stop fishing for recreation. I'm no expert, but from what I've seen and heard over the years, PETA people know less about animals than anyone else. Especially people who own, train, work with, or otherwise spend lots of time around them. They also aren't real big on science, except where it supports their point of view. Though I'm no fan of animal abuse, I'm even less a fan of the kukoos of PETA.

JJuggle

2005-03-18, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
Though I'm no fan of animal abuse, I'm even less a fan of the kukoos of PETA. John let me get this straight. In a world where you had only two choices in terms of taking action to make the world a better place you could choose to stop PETA from engaging in its campaigns or choose to help prevent the abuse of animals, you would choose to counteract PETA's activities. Is this accurate? ;)

johnfoss

2005-03-18, 08:23 PM

Fortunately, in this world there are other ways to look out for the welfare of animals than by associating in any way with PETA.

JJuggle

2005-03-18, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
Fortunately, in this world there are other ways to look out for the welfare of animals than by associating in any way with PETA. I absolutely agree. But you evaded the question. ;)

pdc

2005-03-18, 08:37 PM

JJuggle

2005-03-18, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by pdc
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHH Can't argue with that. :)

john_childs

2005-03-18, 10:08 PM

Originally posted by JJuggle
John let me get this straight. In a world where you had only two choices in terms of taking action to make the world a better place you could choose to stop PETA from engaging in its campaigns or choose to help prevent the abuse of animals, you would choose to counteract PETA's activities. Is this accurate? ;)
That's like giving a hard core Green party member the hypothetical situation: In a world where you had only two political choices, Democrats and Republicans, in terms of taking action to make the world a better place you could choose to stop the Democratic party from engaging in its campaigns or choose to help the Democratic party continue on in its corrupt ways. Would you support the Democratic party?

PETA is all about militant vegetarianism. All their other messages are lost in the vegetarianism rhetoric. They are not the group to support if you are interested in animal welfare. Groups like the Humane Society actually make a difference. PETA just makes noise.

JJuggle

2005-03-18, 10:25 PM

Originally posted by john_childs
That's like giving a hard core Green party member the hypothetical situation: In a world where you had only two political choices, Democrats and Republicans, in terms of taking action to make the world a better place you could choose to stop the Democratic party from engaging in its campaigns or choose to help the Democratic party continue on in its corrupt ways. Would you support the Democratic party?

PETA is all about militant vegetarianism. All their other messages are lost in the vegetarianism rhetoric. They are not the group to support if you are interested in animal welfare. Groups like the Humane Society actually make a difference. PETA just makes noise. Everyone I think is missing my simple point. John said he was no fan of animal abuse but even less of a fan of PETA. That implies that even if both are distasteful to him he prefers animal abuse to PETA. I was just trying to get him to stand by his assertion.

Jeez, it was just a joke. John can't possibly have actually meant that. You people are being whinier than a liberal stuck at a Republican fund raiser with no French wine. ;)

mscalisi

2005-03-18, 11:12 PM

Because I am Vegan, people always assume that I am against Hunting/Fishing, and the the truth is, If people were forced to get their meat themselves, we would live in a much better and humane world.

It is the commercial production of meat and commercial fishing which is truly cruel and environmentally destructive.

As for PETA, they are extremist, and make us pragmatic vegan/vegetarians look foolish. I consider myself a truth seeker, and the truth is absent from any kind of extremism. (However, I consider the current food production system much more extreme than veganism)

bugman

2005-03-18, 11:38 PM

I always hear how smart dolphins are. If they are so smart when will they learn to avoid trawling nets? You won't catch me swimming in the English Channel when they are trawling for fish.

paco

2005-03-19, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by johnfoss
PETA are all about publicity.

I have to agree with John on this point. Did they think that they would make Dick Cheney give up his "evil" ways? I'm sure giving up fishing is on his list of things to do right after becoming a Democrat. In other words, it ain't gonna happen.
But they are going to get a lot more publicity by sending a letter to the Vice President than by sending a letter to Earl, the guy who sells tackle in Rigby, Idaho. The more outlandish the stunt, the more publicity they get. And bad publicity is still publicity.
Anyone remember the "Got Beer" campaign? PETA was telling everyone that they should give up drinking milk and drink beer instead, because it was healthier for you.

john_childs

2005-03-19, 01:38 AM

Originally posted by JJuggle
Everyone I think is missing my simple point. John said he was no fan of animal abuse but even less of a fan of PETA. That implies that even if both are distasteful to him he prefers animal abuse to PETA. I was just trying to get him to stand by his assertion.

Jeez, it was just a joke. John can't possibly have actually meant that. You people are being whinier than a liberal stuck at a Republican fund raiser with no French wine. ;)
I don't find it illogical or inconsistent to support a cause but not support an organization that supports the same cause. There's lots of reasons not to like or support an organization that shares some of your views or supports one of your causes. We make those kinds of distinctions all throughout life. There's nothing inconsistent in John's statement that he is no fan of animal abuse but even less of a fan of PETA. Nothing inconsistent at all.

JJuggle

2005-03-19, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by john_childs
I don't find it illogical or inconsistent to support a cause but not support an organization that supports the same cause. There's lots of reasons not to like or support an organization that shares some of your views or supports one of your causes. We make those kinds of distinctions all throughout life. There's nothing inconsistent in John's statement that he is no fan of animal abuse but even less of a fan of PETA. Nothing inconsistent at all. Typically the phrase John used would be something like this:

I'm no fan of war, but I'm even less a fan of terrorists. - Meaning that given a choice between war and terrorists, you'll take war. This I can understand.

Given the choice between PETA and animal abuse, taking the side of animal abuse is just not right. He didn't pose it as a choice between the cause and the organization. He posed it between the organization and what it opposes. Again, it's what he said even though I don't really believe it's what he meant.

http://www.p0stwh0res.com/images/deadhorse.jpg

john_childs

2005-03-19, 03:14 AM

I wonder if anti-fishing eco-terrorists are behind this act of very dangerous public vandalism:

Booby-Trapped Rivers Pose Additional Threat (http://www.katu.com/team2/story.asp?ID=75807)

KATU 2 News - Portland, Oregon
www.katu.com

Booby-Trapped Rivers Pose Additional Threat

March 17, 2005
- By Grant McOmie
katu.com

PORTLAND, Ore. - Fishing guide Phil Hawkins rows fishermen down the Sandy River for a chance to catch a steelhead.

He says this winter the unusually low water has meant that he's kept a sharper eye on frothy rapids, exposed rocks and something new.

"I have to worry about packing the right rods, the right flies, the right equipment and food - but never, ever would I dream that I'd have to worry about spikes or nails in the river that would tear my boat up," says Hawkins.

Nails or spikes - several inches long - have been drilled or pounded into the river's rocks. In recent weeks, the nails have ripped open two rafts, including Josh Linn's 16-foot pontoon raft.

Josh pointed to the 30-inch tear: "That's where the nail went in all the way. It's a huge gash and it was a scary moment."

Linn was floating through a dangerous rapid when the nail tore up his boat. But he was lucky and made it to shore where he was able to patch and repair his raft.

He and Hawkins say the incidents happened near popular Dodge Park. Hawkins pointed to a partially submerged rock: "See the three silvery, shiny looking things right there - those are all nails."

The nails were visible just under the water's surface. They were hammered into the rock and Hawkins said he thinks it was intentional and it could have killed someone.

"It could be a real dangerous situation," added Hawkins. "There's a lot of current here and the river is cold and the current is relentless. If you lose your boat, it could all be over."

Hawkins used a hammer and bent the sharp nails over so the rock wouldn't pose a dangerous risk. Now, he and other guides float the river to look for more rocks that are sporting nails or spikes.

We float past one huge rock in the middle of the river that looked suspicious with two thin and sharp spikes that looked like nails. If the water was higher, you'd never see the danger coming and you'd end up in bog trouble.

For longtime river rafters Judy Steigler and Vall Schaull, the most worrisome problem will hit this summer. That's when kids come to the Sandy River to float on inner tubes or small inflatable rafts. They might not see the problem until it's too late.

"In the summertime children play near Dodge Park." said Stiegler. "If some child goes out of their inner tube, goes through there and catches on a nail they could be seriously hurt."

Schaull added: "I'm worried about this - if it starts here, it could migrate to other rivers."

There are no clues to this crime, but Hawkins hopes they can find all of the nails planted in the rocks before the summer floating season starts.

But he admits the river is huge and they might not find all the unseen dangers before another boat goes down.

Ed Hansen

2005-03-19, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by john_childs
I wonder if anti-fishing eco-terrorists are behind this act of very dangerous public vandalism:

Booby-Trapped Rivers Pose Additional Threat (http://www.katu.com/team2/story.asp?ID=75807)

KATU 2 News - Portland, Oregon
www.katu.com

Sounds like the handiwork of A.L.F. (Animal Liberation Front) Think of them as the green berets for PeTA. Not to be confused with E.L.F. (Earth Liberation Front) who are the green berets for Earth First & more distantly GreenPeace (who does their own stuff usually).

All have their hearts in the right place (IMO)--to not see any animals suffer, ever, and to protect the environment...

but ALF, ELF and Earth First seek to change people's activities by very wrong actions. They are considered terrorist organizations.

They have historically chose passive-aggesive techniques. That didn't work so they resorted to damaging property to cost their "enemies" as much money as possible. That hasn't been working either and they have made plans to move it farther.... To what degree has yet to be seen, but they have put out messages in literature and the internet that personal harm my be occur in the future. First comes letter writing, then comes protests and sit-ins, then actions against property, such as ELF burning down a new lodge at Vail in an exspansion that they opposed.... at night when no person would get hurt, but the spikes in the river are aimed at hurting not only the boat, but also the person and to intimidate people from doing what they oppose... fishing. Terrorism.

As of today, they haven't killed any people yet. But what they practice is "grass roots" terrorism and this is one example of them upping the ante. They are prosecuted under the same laws as Al Qaeda.

I'm one of those "save the whales" type of people, but not like that.

I work at where terrorist can and do end up and there is only one thought that I have to ay about that option.... "Fuck that!"

johnfoss

2005-03-20, 06:56 PM

It was interesting reading all of you guys debating my quote from earlier. Okay Raphael, I'll take the bait. First I'll quote myself:

"Though I'm no fan of animal abuse, I'm even less a fan of the kukoos of PETA."

So I suppose you could look at that and say I "like" animal abuse better than PETA. I guess that isn't true, but how about I *accept* animal abuse more readily than PETA. That still doesn't sound right either. I only accept such things because they are going to happen even if I dedicate my entire life to fighting them. So I accept murder, terrorism, graffiti and littering. I guess I have to accept PETA too, but not happily. No, that's not true either. I don't "accept" any of those things. Nor do I accept PETA. I believe they do more harm to the cause than good. They are all facade with little or no substance.
Originally posted by john_childs
PETA is all about militant vegetarianism. All their other messages are lost in the vegetarianism rhetoric. They are not the group to support if you are interested in animal welfare. Groups like the Humane Society actually make a difference. PETA just makes noise. There you go. I'll support the Humane Society and various other constructive organizations before I ever support or assist the kooks at PETA.

darchibald

2005-03-20, 07:27 PM

Originally posted by DK
Fish do have feelings, but catching them with a hook and then leting the suffocate is a lot nicer than, lets say cave man spearfishing where you stab the fish, rip it in half alive and eat it.

If you fish you shouldn't be doing that. You're supposed to snap their necks if you are planning on keeping them, if not let them go free. Unless you're talking about big-ass deep sea fish, then I don't know.

David

DigitalDave

2005-03-20, 07:39 PM

Originally posted by john_childs
Nails or spikes - several inches long - have been drilled or pounded into the river's rocks.

I read this ... 5 minutes ago .... and came back ...

... I'm still 'reeling' in anger/frustation

this action reminds me to my neighbors doing 'actions' to stop us kids from riding our motorbikes...

1. Placing large gauge wire across known paths.
(I hit one and it acted like a rubber band, I was caught across the chest. The bike went straight, (caught a wheelie from my grip), and I went backwards after streatched the wire. I had a huge gouge in my chest and arms. Luckly the wire was low enough not to catch my neck. (I wouldn't be here now) )

2. Shotguns and rocksalt. (shot numerous times in the back)

3. Broomhandles and yard tools thrown at the front wheel spokes.

Grrrrrr.... :mad:

BraveSirStupid

2005-03-20, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by johnfoss
. Nor do I accept PETA. I believe they do more harm to the cause than good. They are all facade with little or no substance.

I call it the Zero-sum Law of Activism. The loudest advocates for an issue are its worst representatives.

It's true for any kind of rights movement -- either side of the issue --you can name.

I believe it comes from loss of perspective. People spend all of their time, energy, brainpower etc on an issue, and spend all their time with like minded individuals. Eventually, you get crazy talk, which leads to more justification/analysis/dialectic yadda ---> crazy acts.

Any issue, all sides.

.max
a voice of experience ;)

DigitalDave

2005-03-20, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by darchibald
Unless you're talking about big-ass deep sea fish, then I don't know.

The Mexicans in Cabo used a wooden mallet on the eyes of the stripped marlin I caught. (to kill them) It's because they didn't want the 'horn' of the fish stabbing them or us. My dad's fish came up dead. That was because if you don't keep the fish at the surface, they will 'sound'. 'Sounding' is when the fish swims so far down it's heart ruptures. (Then you have a 'log' to pull up.)

Deep sea fishing is hard work. Big fish will pull you into the water if not carefull.

BTW, the entire fish was used by us.
What we couldn't eat the 'hired help' and thier families ate.

JJuggle

2005-04-30, 01:42 AM

Originally posted by JJuggle
Apparently PETA did complain but as per the below was not the instigating factor in the company discontinuing the candy line. Neither of the words "Gummi" or "Trolli", by the way, yields hits on the PETA website.

Is there a proscribed way to eat a chocolate bunny humanely?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cruelty to Candy Animals

190 words
7 March 2005
NJBIZ
3
Volume 18; Issue 10; ISSN: 15404161
English
Copyright (c) 2005 Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company. All rights reserved.

Animal rights groups performed a drive-by and helped knock off Kraft Foods' new Road Kill Gummi Candy. This post-traumatic product from Kraft's Trolli division consisted of partly squished-looking fruit-flavored snakes, chickens and squirrels with tread marks across their bodies-a distinct departure from the look of the company's cute Gummi Bears.

It seems that Kraft, which in November announced plans to sell off its Trolli and other candy brands to The Wm. Wrigley Jr. Co. for approximately $1.5 billion, halted production after the Trenton-based New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals threatened a boycott, complaining that the candy sends the wrong message to kids. The company didn't mean to be insensitive, says Jim Low, a Kraft brand manager.

Lisa Lange, spokeswoman for the Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, reports that the organization received "hundreds of e-mails from people who were upset about the candy." She adds that PETA, which also complained to Kraft, is glad that the food maker rethought its strategy.

Copyright Snowden Publications, Inc. Mar 7, 2005 Well, despite the best efforts of the NJ Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals and PETA as well as the promises of the manufacturer, Trolli Road Kill Gummis are still available in the great state of New Jersey. I just acquired a bag in a 7-Eleven not far from my home. (I was on line waiting to pay for a Diet Vanilla Coke (for me) and a Diet Wild Cherry Pepsi (for the wife) and there they were.)

Based on the ingredients I'd say that somebody should try to get these off the market for the prevention of cruelty to children but as for me, I'm going to stick 'em in the freezer and wait for them to be collectors items yielding maybe 2 or 3 times their original price on eBay. Should only take 10 or 15 years to turn my $1 investment into 3 or 4. :D