|
OT--Loony Liberalism Run Amuck
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. |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:12:29 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
~~ snippage ~~ 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. Believe this or not, this actually has a chance of passing. Idiots. Later, Tom |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message I say...arm and train the animals. Might give them a 'sporting' chance. |
"Don White" wrote in message ... "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message I say...arm and train the animals. Might give them a 'sporting' chance. It is in our Constitution....the right to keep and arm bears.;-) |
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. 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 |
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! |
"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. |
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message snip 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. snip The English pushed this a little far with their fox hunts. |
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 |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:50:13 GMT, "Don White"
wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message snip 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. snip The English pushed this a little far with their fox hunts. Nothing wrong with mounted fox hunts with dogs. Later, Tom |
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 |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:43:30 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:50:13 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message snip 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. snip The English pushed this a little far with their fox hunts. Nothing wrong with mounted fox hunts with dogs. The foxes have a different opinion, I would imagine. Foxes don't have opinions. Later, Tom |
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:02:54 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:43:30 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:50:13 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message snip 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. snip The English pushed this a little far with their fox hunts. Nothing wrong with mounted fox hunts with dogs. The foxes have a different opinion, I would imagine. Foxes don't have opinions. Everything reported on Fox is an opinion. You mean like Tailwind or the phantom Bush ANG papers? Later, Tom |
"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. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:02:54 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 18:43:30 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: Short Wave Sportfishing wrote: On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:50:13 GMT, "Don White" wrote: "Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message snip 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. snip The English pushed this a little far with their fox hunts. Nothing wrong with mounted fox hunts with dogs. The foxes have a different opinion, I would imagine. Foxes don't have opinions. Everything reported on Fox is an opinion. You mean like Tailwind or the phantom Bush ANG papers? Later, Tom Ahhh, the ANG story. Too bad we'll never really have all the details of Bush's unusual "service" in that body. Just the same for Kerry, a sitting Senator. We will never know for sure that he was dishonorably discharged from the Navy. Then when Carter took office he was "fixed" up again and that's when the Siver Star certificate was re-issued during Reagan's term. Oh, and let's not forget about the KKK Senator Robert Byrd from West Virginia. |
It's idiocy and political correctness of the highest order. Could you define 'political correctness'? |
|
On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 06:47:32 GMT, "Falky foo"
wrote: It's idiocy and political correctness of the highest order. Could you define 'political correctness'? Your version or mine? Political correctness is entirely subjective and while there are what can be thought of as "PC", in fact, it is anything that one finds to be offensive in particular when dealing with politicians and their need to be all things to all people. In short, there isn't a definition - it's whatever you find offensive. In this case, it is an attempt by certain members of an outside non-government agency to restrict the hunting/recreational fishing communities ability to participate in their chosen sports. It is very popular down state where people hunt their food in upscale, trendy boutique stores. Up in the rural NW and NE CT, a certain population which has moved instate and upstate which seems to believe that large property owners can't or should not be allowed to set the rules by which one allows hunters, or fishermen, onto streams, ponds or rivers that adjoin or run through one's property. So in this instance, that is my definition of Political Correctness as it affects this particular issue. Later, Tom |
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 |
"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 06:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com