On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:09:52 -0800, jps wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 20:45:05 GMT, "Don White"
wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message


I say...arm and train the animals. Might give them a 'sporting' chance.

The reason I say idiots, is this.

Dogs have been man's hunting companion since the first wolf wandered
into the circle sitting around the campfire and scrounged what ever
was left of the animal du jour.

It's idiocy and political correctness of the highest order.

Gee thanks Tom. I understand perfectly well now.

See my reply to Falky.

Later,

Tom

Don White wrote:


I say...arm and train the animals. Might give them a 'sporting' chance.


Yeah. Support your right to arm bears.

No, I find myself sitting solid on the "right" on this matter, unlike
NOYB, I don't consider it a right-left or liberal-conservative issue,
but more an urban versus rural issue, like our(Canadian)stupid gun
registry.

Since the Ontario goverment decided to end the spring bear hunt (done to
garner the urban female vote, and it worked) I LOOK FORWARD to WINTER,
if you can believe it. My backyard is invaded daily during the spring
by HUNGRY BEARS! My garden is gone to ruin and my dog is getting fat
because I am too afraid to go for a walk. And that's just me. There
are dozens of old people (mostly ladies) who used to pick up a few bucks
picking blueberries, not anymore. We, in Northern Ontario, are OVERRUN
with black bears. Although the government will tell you different story
- they are, how shall we say, oh yeah - LYING!!

Many outfitters have gone out of business. No more rich American
hunters shovelling money into small northern towns. And you'd think all
those southern-ontario city folk would just love to come have a look at
the cute little bearcubs. But no. One business that I know, in 5 years
has had NOT EVEN ONE "eco-tourist".

I was thinking of starting a website offering bear viewing tours to
Torontians. All they have to do is sit out on my deck. Those cute
little bearcubs aren't nearly so cute really close up. (I'd lock the
backdoor once I got my tourists out there heeheehee)

In my neighbourhood we have a "gentleman's agreement". Nobody hears
gunshots. Nobody reports gunshots. But once in a while there is one
less bear around. Unlike hunters though, we don't check the sex before
we shoot. I am willing to bet that there are actually MORE orphaned
bearcubs now then there was when there was legal spring bear hunting.
There is in my neighourhood, anyway. Because before the cancellation of
the hunt there were NO bearcubs in my neighbourhood. There was one
male, he lived across the road and owned the whole area. Last summer
there was 7 bears where once there was 1. This spring, God only knows.

I could rant on this topic for pages and pages but I won't bore you
anymore. Just thought I'd put in the perspective of someone who has
suffered though a very, very limited hunting ban. I feel sorry for
anyone living in RURAL New York, if this passes.

Stella

"Black Dog" wrote in message
. ..
snip
Many outfitters have gone out of business. No more rich American
hunters shovelling money into small northern towns. And you'd think all
those southern-ontario city folk would just love to come have a look at
the cute little bearcubs. But no. One business that I know, in 5 years
has had NOT EVEN ONE "eco-tourist".

I was thinking of starting a website offering bear viewing tours to
Torontians. All they have to do is sit out on my deck. Those cute
little bearcubs aren't nearly so cute really close up. (I'd lock the
backdoor once I got my tourists out there heeheehee)

snip

Churchill, Manitoba seems to have found a way to make money off 'bear
watching' tourists. They also have a program to relocate troublesome bears.

Don White wrote:

snip

Churchill, Manitoba seems to have found a way to make money off 'bear
watching' tourists. They also have a program to relocate troublesome bears.



There's some people here trying to relocate the buggers as well:

http://www.friends-of-fur.org/
Personally, I'm supporting the idea of re-introducing them to Queen's Park.

We supposedly have a bear relocation program, too. I talk to the bear
guy every spring when he puts the live bear trap in my yard for the
maximum three days that he can spare it (IIRC there are eight traps and
over a hundred calls a week in the spring season). They are taken about
150 miles and released. It took the one I know of (a big one with a
green tag that they trapped up the road from here) three days to get back.


Oh - and I'd like to point out, for my American friends that it was a
right-wing CONSERVATIVE government grovelling for votes that canceled
the spring bear hunt in Ontario, not "loony" liberalism, which up here
we call "The NDP"

Stella

"Don White" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message


I say...arm and train the animals. Might give them a 'sporting' chance.



There are more deer and black bear in the greater Washington D.C. area now
than there were 300 years ago. Oh, the mountain lions are moving back into
the area too.

We need to do more hunting with fire arms than with cars. The cost of
hunting with cars is taking a large toll in human life.

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:12:29 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Proposed New York bill is absolutely criminal
By Gene Mueller
Published February 23, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York hunters are in an uproar over state assembly Bill 1850 that would
make sport hunting a punishable act of animal cruelty.
The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, New York City
Democrat, would revise the state's definition of animal cruelty to include
the "killing or injuring [of] wild game and wild birds." The revision would
make hunting and trapping activities criminal offenses. The bill is now
being considered before the body's Agriculture Committee.
"The bill creates a contradiction in the law [because] the state code
allows regulated hunting," said Tony Celebrezze of the U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance, a national watchdog group that is ready to enter the fray whenever
Americans' right to hunt is challenged. "If [this] becomes law, anti-hunters
will have a field day ensuring that sportsmen are prosecuted on animal
cruelty charges."
The proposal is similar to a Texas bill that also would turn everyday
hunters into criminals. Hunters in Iowa and Connecticut also have had to
defeat animal cruelty bills that threatened hunting with dogs.

Next thing you know they'll try to ban fishing. Daaaaaamn!

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:31:26 GMT, Rick wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:12:29 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Proposed New York bill is absolutely criminal
By Gene Mueller
Published February 23, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York hunters are in an uproar over state assembly Bill 1850 that would
make sport hunting a punishable act of animal cruelty.
The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, New York City
Democrat, would revise the state's definition of animal cruelty to include
the "killing or injuring [of] wild game and wild birds." The revision would
make hunting and trapping activities criminal offenses. The bill is now
being considered before the body's Agriculture Committee.
"The bill creates a contradiction in the law [because] the state code
allows regulated hunting," said Tony Celebrezze of the U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance, a national watchdog group that is ready to enter the fray whenever
Americans' right to hunt is challenged. "If [this] becomes law, anti-hunters
will have a field day ensuring that sportsmen are prosecuted on animal
cruelty charges."
The proposal is similar to a Texas bill that also would turn everyday
hunters into criminals. Hunters in Iowa and Connecticut also have had to
defeat animal cruelty bills that threatened hunting with dogs.

Next thing you know they'll try to ban fishing. Daaaaaamn!

What do you mean next thing - they already are after the recreational
fishery.

Later,

Tom

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:31:26 GMT, Rick wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:12:29 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Proposed New York bill is absolutely criminal
By Gene Mueller
Published February 23, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York hunters are in an uproar over state assembly Bill 1850 that
would
make sport hunting a punishable act of animal cruelty.
The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, New York City
Democrat, would revise the state's definition of animal cruelty to
include
the "killing or injuring [of] wild game and wild birds." The revision
would
make hunting and trapping activities criminal offenses. The bill is now
being considered before the body's Agriculture Committee.
"The bill creates a contradiction in the law [because] the state
code
allows regulated hunting," said Tony Celebrezze of the U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance, a national watchdog group that is ready to enter the fray
whenever
Americans' right to hunt is challenged. "If [this] becomes law,
anti-hunters
will have a field day ensuring that sportsmen are prosecuted on animal
cruelty charges."
The proposal is similar to a Texas bill that also would turn
everyday
hunters into criminals. Hunters in Iowa and Connecticut also have had to
defeat animal cruelty bills that threatened hunting with dogs.

Next thing you know they'll try to ban fishing. Daaaaaamn!

What do you mean next thing - they already are after the recreational
fishery.


Marine sanctuaries and no-fish zones are popping up all over the place.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 18:10:16 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:31:26 GMT, Rick wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:12:29 +0000, NOYB wrote:


Proposed New York bill is absolutely criminal
By Gene Mueller
Published February 23, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York hunters are in an uproar over state assembly Bill 1850 that
would
make sport hunting a punishable act of animal cruelty.
The bill, introduced by Assemblyman Alexander Grannis, New York City
Democrat, would revise the state's definition of animal cruelty to
include
the "killing or injuring [of] wild game and wild birds." The revision
would
make hunting and trapping activities criminal offenses. The bill is now
being considered before the body's Agriculture Committee.
"The bill creates a contradiction in the law [because] the state
code
allows regulated hunting," said Tony Celebrezze of the U.S. Sportsmen's
Alliance, a national watchdog group that is ready to enter the fray
whenever
Americans' right to hunt is challenged. "If [this] becomes law,
anti-hunters
will have a field day ensuring that sportsmen are prosecuted on animal
cruelty charges."
The proposal is similar to a Texas bill that also would turn
everyday
hunters into criminals. Hunters in Iowa and Connecticut also have had to
defeat animal cruelty bills that threatened hunting with dogs.

Next thing you know they'll try to ban fishing. Daaaaaamn!

What do you mean next thing - they already are after the recreational
fishery.

Marine sanctuaries and no-fish zones are popping up all over the place.

Not to mention restricted access to beaches or really innovative ways
to circumvent the law to keep the riff raff out.

Take Greenwich for example. When the State Supreme Court ordered open
public access to the beaches, Greenwich grudgingly complied, but the
town closed all public parking, restricted roadside parking
effectively making it impossible to access the beaches unless you were
capable of walking five miles.

Last year, it was particularly delicious when one of the biggest
liberal "protectors of the common man" in the state legislature, the
author of the Beachway Access Law (I think that's what it was called)
was himself in violation by locking the beach access between his 25
million dollar property in West Greenwich and his neighbors property.
His reason was that people wandered above the Mean Highest High Tide
mark and were too close to his property - being a public figure and
what with all the terrorists wandering around the state, he had that
right.

Later,

Tom

In article ,
says...

Last year, it was particularly delicious when one of the biggest
liberal "protectors of the common man" in the state legislature, the
author of the Beachway Access Law (I think that's what it was called)
was himself in violation by locking the beach access between his 25
million dollar property in West Greenwich and his neighbors property.
His reason was that people wandered above the Mean Highest High Tide
mark and were too close to his property - being a public figure and
what with all the terrorists wandering around the state, he had that
right.

So your point is that Republicans don't have an exclusive on self-
righteous assholes who'll bend the rules to fit their personal needs?

jps