|
"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 |
|
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 00:19:42 -0800, jps wrote:
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? LOL!!! Yeah - I guess. :) Later, Tom |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote:
In article , says... ~~ snippage ~~ So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as it affects this particular issue. ~~ snip ~~ While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or higher standards in the "meat" industry. I totally agree with you here. I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the land can afford it. I think I understand that. But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in in its entirety. I agree here also. I take a state granted property tax reduction which is related to "open space". It's not a lot, but it helps when you own 300 acres of property in a rural town with no industrial base to speak of. The open space means that I allow access for the tax break. I can limit the use of the land, for example, I restrict hunters to those I know or those who have been verified and vouched for. I let kids use my pond for fishing, but they can't swim and they have to wear a life preserver when around the pond - my rules. I allow geo-cachers (sp?) to run amok in the woods - these are just examples. My pond is part of a town/city watershed and I have certain things I can't do with it even though I live in a different town - I don't have any argument with that. It's probably the one thing the State has done correctly. I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate voters to vote for them or raise them money. Which is probably the best definition of political correctness I have run into. :) Later, Tom |
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote:
Okay, so here's this "lefty's" view. I hate that people purchase meat dressed up in nice packaging. I think it totally removes them from the process and shields them from the realities of the feed lot and slaughter house. While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or higher standards in the "meat" industry. I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the land can afford it. But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in in its entirety. I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate voters to vote for them or raise them money. jps Wow, something of jps's to agree with! Here's a packaged chicken tidbit that you may or may not have noticed. Some of the stuff sold right here in Safeway's is marked "15% solution enhanced" or some such ****. Check out the sodium content per serving on the back label. You'll find a sodium content of about 450mg. Perdue, or any other label, which *isn't* enhanced with this solution has only about 50-70 mg of sodium per serving. Unreal! John H On the 'PocoLoco' out of Deale, MD, on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! "Divide each difficulty into as many parts as is feasible and necessary to resolve it." Rene Descartes |
|
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:15:04 -0800, jps wrote:
In article , says... On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 22:55:06 -0800, jps wrote: In article , says... ~~ snippage ~~ So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as it affects this particular issue. ~~ snip ~~ While I realize it's not practical to think we should all go hunting for food in the wilderness and grow our own crops, I think it's a good experience to kill and have to slaughter an animal. It's a direct connect with the process and a reality check. I also think people who eat pigs and cows and chickens should understand how those animals are raised, fed and slaughtered. Perhaps we'd have fewer meat eaters or higher standards in the "meat" industry. I totally agree with you here. I respect anyone who has the cahones to live off the land (while they're also respecting and looking out for it's welfare and taking care that their impact is not negative) but have little respect for those who take life for sport. I'm all for harvesting mature animals for food, as the land can afford it. I think I understand that. But if you don't think landowners are beholden to those up and downstream, I disagree. You don't get to say what happens to a waterway just because it transits your property. Unless, of course, you own in in its entirety. I agree here also. I take a state granted property tax reduction which is related to "open space". It's not a lot, but it helps when you own 300 acres of property in a rural town with no industrial base to speak of. The open space means that I allow access for the tax break. I can limit the use of the land, for example, I restrict hunters to those I know or those who have been verified and vouched for. I let kids use my pond for fishing, but they can't swim and they have to wear a life preserver when around the pond - my rules. I allow geo-cachers (sp?) to run amok in the woods - these are just examples. My pond is part of a town/city watershed and I have certain things I can't do with it even though I live in a different town - I don't have any argument with that. It's probably the one thing the State has done correctly. I think you're confusing PC with just plain old politics. Politicians and legislators are more likely to show interest in things that motivate voters to vote for them or raise them money. Which is probably the best definition of political correctness I have run into. :) Later, Tom Careful, if we agree on too much folks'll start thinkin' you're another of them NE liberals. It would amuse my wife, all four kids and most of my friends to think of me as a NE liberal. It's a concept that would, literally, cause a brain aneurysm it's so foreign. :) As you know, they're the worst kind!!! Damn straight!!! Later, Tom |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com