Why PETA will always be a joke to me

[Bocefish]

There is no conflict of interest except the one that is in the minds of Californians that think cougars should NEVER be hunted.

That drug analogy is ridiculous. A far more accurate analogy would be if California had banned rainbow trout fishing and Richards went to another state to fish for the species legally. Would there still be a conflict of interest in their & your opinion?

Californian voters don't have the right to decide about public policies?
Yes actually, he would be just as open for question if he had gone elsewhere to hunt or fish or kill any species that was illegal in his home state where he is involved in deciding legal hunting status.

Of course they have the right to decide public policies IN CALIFORNIA.

The drug analogy is perfectly appropriate - tell me why it isn't please, and be specific. It involves a government appointee, able to influence legal status in his own state, responsible for enforcing in his own state, travelling elsewhere to partake in activities that he would arrest members of his own state's public for. It is perfectly suited.

The drug analogy is inappropriate because it has nothing to do with the profession he currently holds. Richards is perfectly competent to uphold the Fish & Game laws in California while going outside of California to participate in legal activities elsewhere. If he killed a hippo in Africa, would that also be a conflict of interest? Richards is not the ultimate decision on wildlife laws in California anyway, he is just one educated person that votes in the process of which species are to be managed and how. If people don't like him or the way he does things, don't re-elect him in 8 months but He did NOTHING ILLEGAL to be fired for. PERIOD.

 

[Nordling]

Ha! I love the words and phrases they use. "Harvest" it? Did they then grind it into flour and bake bread?

That is actually a conservation term used by professional wildlife managers, but you'd have to actually know something about conservation efforts to understand it.

No need to be insulting; it really does nothing to further your argument. I know that "harvest" is jargon among hunters and animal control people to mean "off." The point is, why did such a term begin? It's obviously a euphemism for "kill." Why not just say "kill?" To me saying "harvest" is a little creepy. Like "dad passed away so God harvested his ass." Just say kill! That's what you're doing. People constantly accuse the left of being "PC" but here we have an example of people who often are on the other side of the debate attempting "PC" with a lame term.

 

[Bocefish]

Ha! I love the words and phrases they use. "Harvest" it? Did they then grind it into flour and bake bread?

That is actually a conservation term used by professional wildlife managers, but you'd have to actually know something about conservation efforts to understand it.

No need to be insulting; it really does nothing to further your argument. I know that "harvest" is jargon among hunters and animal control people to mean "off." The point is, why did such a term begin? It's obviously a euphemism for "kill." Why not just say "kill?" To me saying "harvest" is a little creepy. Like "dad passed away so God harvested his ass." Just say kill! That's what you're doing. People constantly accuse the left of being "PC" but here we have an example of people who often are on the other side of the debate attempting "PC" with a lame term.

http://bit.ly/yArjDq

 

[Nordling]

Ha! I love the words and phrases they use. "Harvest" it? Did they then grind it into flour and bake bread?

That is actually a conservation term used by professional wildlife managers, but you'd have to actually know something about conservation efforts to understand it.

No need to be insulting; it really does nothing to further your argument. I know that "harvest" is jargon among hunters and animal control people to mean "off." The point is, why did such a term begin? It's obviously a euphemism for "kill." Why not just say "kill?" To me saying "harvest" is a little creepy. Like "dad passed away so God harvested his ass." Just say kill! That's what you're doing. People constantly accuse the left of being "PC" but here we have an example of people who often are on the other side of the debate attempting "PC" with a lame term.

http://bit.ly/yArjDq

And? None of the links give a rationale for using a euphemism for "kill." I recognize the need for wildlife management in a world where humans are overrunning habitat; I'm not arguing against that. But let's be transparent in our terminology.

 

[Bocefish]

Ha! I love the words and phrases they use. "Harvest" it? Did they then grind it into flour and bake bread?

That is actually a conservation term used by professional wildlife managers, but you'd have to actually know something about conservation efforts to understand it.

No need to be insulting; it really does nothing to further your argument. I know that "harvest" is jargon among hunters and animal control people to mean "off." The point is, why did such a term begin? It's obviously a euphemism for "kill." Why not just say "kill?" To me saying "harvest" is a little creepy. Like "dad passed away so God harvested his ass." Just say kill! That's what you're doing. People constantly accuse the left of being "PC" but here we have an example of people who often are on the other side of the debate attempting "PC" with a lame term.

http://bit.ly/yArjDq

And? None of the links give a rationale for using a euphemism for "kill." I recognize the need for wildlife management in a world where humans are overrunning habitat; I'm not arguing against that. But let's be transparent in our terminology.

I figured the link would be self explanatory enough. Apparently not. I have no problem using the word kill, but when you are talking about wildlife management, the term harvest is more suitable. It's a verb in the English language.

 

[Jupiter551]

harvest implies very strongly that you're taking it to make use of it as a resource. It's completely erroneous for trophy hunting.

 

[Bocefish]

harvest implies very strongly that you're taking it to make use of it as a resource. It's completely erroneous for trophy hunting.

Yes, even trophy hunters make use of their kills. If they just killed it and left it there, it wouldn't be harvesting now would it?

 

[Jupiter551]

The drug analogy is inappropriate because it has nothing to do with the profession he currently holds. Richards is perfectly competent to uphold the Fish & Game laws in California while going outside of California to participate in legal activities elsewhere. If he killed a hippo in Africa, would that also be a conflict of interest? Richards is not the ultimate decision on wildlife laws in California anyway, he is just one educated person that votes in the process of which species are to be managed and how. If people don't like him or the way he does things, don't re-elect him in 8 months but He did NOTHING ILLEGAL to be fired for. PERIOD.

What? That makes NO sense. Richards is to illegal hunting as a police chief is to general crime (including drugs). It is absolutely no different if a police chief went out of his state to do something that was illegal back home. Yes it's legal, and YES he'd be looking for another job.

Richards is one of 5 people responsible for setting laws related to endangered status and hunting, and he is a self-confessed lifelong hunter, so to say he doesn't have a conflict of interest is ridiculous. He has a passion for the thing he's employed by the people of California to safeguard against - trophy hunting.

Taking a head for a trophy is not harvesting...you're just arguing semantics.

 

[Bocefish]

What? That makes NO sense. Richards is to illegal hunting as a police chief is to general crime (including drugs). It is absolutely no different if a police chief went out of his state to do something that was illegal back home. Yes it's legal, and YES he'd be looking for another job.

One small FACT you keep forgetting... HE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL! Why are you so hung up on the drug analogy when I provided a far more accurate and appropriate one relating to his profession?

Richards is one of 5 people responsible for setting laws related to endangered status and hunting, and he is a self-confessed lifelong hunter, so to say he doesn't have a conflict of interest is ridiculous. He has a passion for the thing he's employed by the people of California to safeguard against - trophy hunting.

By your definition, hunters can't also be conservationists or wildlife managers? Good grief! I'm done with this nonsense. Bicker ridiculously amongst yourselves.

 

[Jupiter551]

What? That makes NO sense. Richards is to illegal hunting as a police chief is to general crime (including drugs). It is absolutely no different if a police chief went out of his state to do something that was illegal back home. Yes it's legal, and YES he'd be looking for another job.

One small FACT you keep forgetting... HE DID NOTHING ILLEGAL!

And in my example nor would a police chief if he went across a state or national line to somewhere drugs were legal - so again, how is it not a good analogy?

Richards is one of 5 people responsible for setting laws related to endangered status and hunting, and he is a self-confessed lifelong hunter, so to say he doesn't have a conflict of interest is ridiculous. He has a passion for the thing he's employed by the people of California to safeguard against - trophy hunting.

By your definition, hunters can't also be conservationists or wildlife managers? Good grief! I'm done with this nonsense. Bicker ridiculously amongst yourselves.

Sure they can be, but they can't be impartial when deciding if it's ethical to hunt, that's what a conflict of interest IS, the inability to be impartial because you're already partisan to one side!!

Maybe you should "harvest" a chill-pill and try to think about what other people have said instead of just labelling everyone ignorant idiots who aren't capable of forming valid opinions cos we don't shoot cornered animals.

 

[Nordling]

Dictionaries REPORT, they do not prescribe. We already knew that a group of people, a minority, used "harvest" when talking about killing higher animals; the dictionary simply reports this foolishness.

Using obscure meanings for words doesn't make the meaning more credible.

 

[Jupiter551]

Well I think regardless, it's likely the state will "harvest" his job :lol:

 

[RainbowBryte]

I am not against hunting. I have family members who hunt (deer, squirrel, quail, rabbit, etc) and friends who hunt. Everyone I know who does it does it for the sport and the food. None of that bothers me, maybe just because I love venison . But I do have to say that following a bunch of dogs someone else trained at some hunting reserve or whatever just doesnt seem like something to brag about. The hunters I know do it by themselves with no guide, they track the animal all on their own. Just seems weird to me rich guys paying money so someone can take them hunting, I dont know, just seems weird to me hunting that way.

 

[LadyLuna]

Sure they can be, but they can't be impartial when deciding if it's ethical to hunt, that's what a conflict of interest IS, the inability to be impartial because you're already partisan to one side!!

1. The point of American politics is that we can change the politicians when their terms are up. His term is up in 8 months, why fire him earlier?

2. So who can be impartial? the people who think animals shouldn't be hunted because they're cute? He is on a board. A board should have some members who like to hunt, and some members who are against hunting, so that the decision can be reached based on it's population, not on personal feelings. If I read it properly, they already have three people on the board who don't like hunting. Add another one in, and nothing will get hunted, even when it does become a problem.

 

[Jupiter551]

Sure they can be, but they can't be impartial when deciding if it's ethical to hunt, that's what a conflict of interest IS, the inability to be impartial because you're already partisan to one side!!

1. The point of American politics is that we can change the politicians when their terms are up. His term is up in 8 months, why fire him earlier?

2. So who can be impartial? the people who think animals shouldn't be hunted because they're cute? He is on a board. A board should have some members who like to hunt, and some members who are against hunting, so that the decision can be reached based on it's population, not on personal feelings. If I read it properly, they already have three people on the board who don't like hunting. Add another one in, and nothing will get hunted, even when it does become a problem.

1. He's a political appointee, and wasn't even appointed by this administration. the public doesn't have a way to remove him, but the legislature has the opportunity to fire him if they think he's not doing a good job (and they sent him a letter signed by an overwhelming majority saying they want him out so...yeah)
2. Conservation has nothing to do with trophy hunting, or hunting at all. I have a lot of trouble understanding why you think you need people who "enjoy hunting" to decide animal conservation policies. Zooligists, veterinarians, environmental scientists, agricultural scientists...all these people are unnecessary?
Not sure about why you think nothing would ever get hunted, even in California a state where they're protected by law, I read just the other day an average of 110 mountain lions per year are legally killed (by permit) in california, so to argue that they never get hunted when necessary is pretty spurious - if anything they're probably a bit too liberal in handing out those permits. Trophy hunting isn't, and has never been a solution to overpopulation of some animals. It's an excuse that has about as much merit as the Japanese claiming they kill whales for science.

 

[LadyLuna]

Sure they can be, but they can't be impartial when deciding if it's ethical to hunt, that's what a conflict of interest IS, the inability to be impartial because you're already partisan to one side!!

2. So who can be impartial? the people who think animals shouldn't be hunted because they're cute? He is on a board. A board should have some members who like to hunt, and some members who are against hunting, so that the decision can be reached based on it's population, not on personal feelings. If I read it properly, they already have three people on the board who don't like hunting. Add another one in, and nothing will get hunted, even when it does become a problem.

2. Conservation has nothing to do with trophy hunting, or hunting at all. I have a lot of trouble understanding why you think you need people who "enjoy hunting" to decide animal conservation policies. Zooligists, veterinarians, environmental scientists, agricultural scientists...all these people are unnecessary?

The board is there to determine who can hunt what. shouldn't the hunters get a say in that too?

Not sure about why you think nothing would ever get hunted, even in California a state where they're protected by law, I read just the other day an average of 110 mountain lions per year are legally killed (by permit) in california, so to argue that they never get hunted when necessary is pretty spurious - if anything they're probably a bit too liberal in handing out those permits. Trophy hunting isn't, and has never been a solution to overpopulation of some animals. It's an excuse that has about as much merit as the Japanese claiming they kill whales for science.

I don't know enough about the issue to respond to this one.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's not to decide what should be hunted, it's to decide what shouldn't be. It might seem like a small difference but it's an important one - the commitee's role is one of preservation, it has never and should never be a group who is essentially allowing this or that animal to be hunted. Ethjcal and moral arguments aside, recreational hunting is not an issue on the same level as preservation of endangered species, and it shouldn't be assumed that hunting and conservation are two opposing sides of an argument. Hunting is a luxury that a loud minority are in favour of, conservation of ecosystems is an essential practice that concerns everyone, but often people don't think about it because when it's working people don't worry about it.

Hunters would love to make hunting and conservation issues that are equally weighted, but they can't. No more than I could argue my right to play football on a garden bed is just as important as growing rare plants.

 

[Bocefish]

I just want to clear up some misconceptions here...

The 110 permits or so that Jup referenced are called depridation permits for cougars that have ALL READY ATTACKED or killed people, livestock, or pets.

People need to at least have a basic idea of wtf their talking about before they so vehemently argue a point, at least IMO.

There are three different agencies where some people believe there is only one. Richards is on the F&G Commission.

The Department of Fish and Game http://www.dfg.ca.gov/

The Mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California's diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.

They maintain native fish, wildlife, plant species and natural communities for their intrinsic and ecological value and their benefits to people. This includes habitat protection and maintenance in a sufficient amount and quality to ensure the survival of all species and natural communities. The department is also responsible for the diversified use of fish and wildlife including recreational, commercial, scientific and educational uses.

Fish & Game Commission http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/strategic_plan/mission.pdf



Wildlife Conservation Board

WCB is a separate and independent Board with authority and funding to carry out an acquisition and development program for wildlife conservation. WCB's three main functions are land acquisition, habitat restoration and development of wildlife oriented public access facilities, which are carried out through its PROGRAMS.

 

[Bocefish]

I am not against hunting. I have family members who hunt (deer, squirrel, quail, rabbit, etc) and friends who hunt. Everyone I know who does it does it for the sport and the food. None of that bothers me, maybe just because I love venison . But I do have to say that following a bunch of dogs someone else trained at some hunting reserve or whatever just doesnt seem like something to brag about. The hunters I know do it by themselves with no guide, they track the animal all on their own. Just seems weird to me rich guys paying money so someone can take them hunting, I dont know, just seems weird to me hunting that way.

Everyone I know also does it for food and/or sport by spot and tracking. The use of dogs always seemed strange to me too. Although, many dog species were specifically bred for hunting purposes throughout the ages. For example, the name "dachshund" is of German origin and literally means "badger dog" Hard to imagine those little weiner dogs going after a badger, but that's what they were bred for.

Using hound dogs for hunting is mostly a southern thing as far as I know. I personally wouldn't ever consider using them to track, but I have used retrievers for game birds. I'm just guessing that hounds are used in certain paid for hunts, like the one in Idaho, because they almost guarantee at least a successful hunt, but don't guarantee a successful kill or harvest.

The reason people usually hire guides is because they are unfamiliar with the area and don't have the time to learn it.

 

[EmelieSky]

They tried to release Keiko, for years they worked to ready him, he died.

Keiko died from natural causes. He did very well out in the wild. Nature is cruel. That's not a reason to keep them in captivity in way to small enclosures.

PETA is something that I can't stand for. There are many better organisations out there.

We do have another climate around animals here in Sweden. We have very strict laws around animal well fare. We do have problems with animal cruelty as well, but since we are a much smaller country it's not near as many as you guys have.

In Sweden we are horrified about how people keep there dogs in america for example.

(Got to go, I read the whole thread and answer more serious later)

 

[JoleneBrody]

I agree keiko was wronged before he was rescued, but his conditions were far from sea world conditions before he was brought to america. I actually got to see Keiko many times in Oregon during his rehabilitation. That really doesn't mean anything, just wanted to share.
Anywho, pneumonia is not natural causes. His release failed and he got horribly sick. After being rescued he should have lived out his final years in Oregon. We tried, that's all we can say.

Keiko, the killer whale made famous by the “Free Willy” movies, has died in Norwegian coastal waters where he remained after millions of dollars and a decade of work failed to coax him back to the open sea, his caretakers said early Saturday.

The whale, who was 27, died Friday afternoon after the sudden onset of pneumonia in the Taknes fjord. He was old for an orca in captivity, though wild orca live an average of 35 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3700297/ns/ ... 1pCQYES03k

This really doesn't matter, I just wanted to inform.

 

[Bocefish]

Just an update on the Richards issue...

The Legislature isn't going to oust California Fish and Game Commission President Daniel Richards from the powerful, five-member board, but his colleagues on that commission could remove him as president as soon as May, after quietly setting the wheels in motion with a vote this week.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1owmRDWMB

 

[Just Me]

I agree keiko was wronged before he was rescued, but his conditions were far from sea world conditions before he was brought to america. I actually got to see Keiko many times in Oregon during his rehabilitation. That really doesn't mean anything, just wanted to share.
Anywho, pneumonia is not natural causes. His release failed and he got horribly sick. After being rescued he should have lived out his final years in Oregon. We tried, that's all we can say.

Keiko, the killer whale made famous by the “Free Willy” movies, has died in Norwegian coastal waters where he remained after millions of dollars and a decade of work failed to coax him back to the open sea, his caretakers said early Saturday.

The whale, who was 27, died Friday afternoon after the sudden onset of pneumonia in the Taknes fjord. He was old for an orca in captivity, though wild orca live an average of 35 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3700297/ns/ ... 1pCQYES03k

This really doesn't matter, I just wanted to inform.

Actually, pneumonia is considered a natural cause of death. At least for us humans. Maybe for whales it is different?

 

[Bocefish]

http://www.keepamericafishing.org/news/ ... california

Thanks to overwhelming response from anglers and hunters, the state legislature backed off a resolution to remove Dan Richards from the commission

Your Voice Was Heard!

The California state legislature is no longer considering a resolution to remove California Fish and Game Commission President Dan Richards from the commission.

For the past two weeks, California's sportsmen and women have let their voices be heard speaking out in support of Richards. An avid angler and hunter, Richards had been unfairly attacked by extreme environmental and animal rights organizations for taking part in a legal hunt in Idaho.

Angler response was overwhelming! Thousands of California sportsmen and women sent messages through KeepAmericaFishing™ to the state legislature and the commission in support of Richards. Many anglers also attended the March 7, commission meeting to provide comment and show support for Richards.

Commissioner Richards recently contacted KeepAmericaFishing to express his gratitude to the thousands of KeepAmericaFishing advocates for their support.

Why is Retaining Commissioner Richards So Important?

The organizations leading the charge against Richards have a much broader agenda. As a commissioner, Richards has consistently voted on the side of sound science and proven fish and wildlife management. Richards has been a voice of reason throughout the flawed Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) initiative, a controversial program that threatens sportfishing in California, and the businesses and 20,000 jobs that depend on it, by unnecessarily closing large areas of the ocean to recreational fishing.

If they had been successful in their efforts to remove Richards from the commission, these anti-fishing groups would have been one step closer to shutting anglers out of more of California's best fishing spots.

KeepAmericaFishing does not believe the attacks are over and expects that the next tactic will be an attempt to unseat Richards as President of the commission. Please be ready to voice your support for keeping angler friendly members on the commission.

 

[Jupiter551]

Legislature backed off that two weeks ago because a safer, no-possible-backlash method was found to first remove him from the presidency and change the comission's rules. He's going, politicians will never stick their necks out when they don't need to - because he's going anyway.

 

[Bocefish]

Hahaha They backed off because they were wrong, facing overwhelming opposition and didn't have a legal leg to stand on. If they fired him over the hunting issue, they would have been sued, and rightly so.

 

[Jupiter551]

It's not a "job", it's an appointment to a commitee, overseen by the legislature, they can remove him whenever they see fit.

 

[Bocefish]

Fired, let go, or removed... same thing. The outcome over the hunting issue was just. Let the underhanded political maneuvering of the liberals on a witch hunt commence. Everyone concerned will be watching now.

 

[Nordling]

Fired, let go, or removed... same thing. The outcome over the hunting issue was just. Let the underhanded political maneuvering of the liberals on a witch hunt commence. Everyone concerned will be watching now.

"Liberals?" Why do you seem to dislike a group of people you refer to as liberal? Do you even know what it means? I've known people who self-identify as liberal (or progressive) who loved to hunt and fish, and people who self-identify as conservative or libertarian who hate it.

 

[Bocefish]

The witch hunt to remove Richards (a registered Republican) was led by a gang of legislators who are all Democrats. I assumed they were Liberal Democrats. If you know better, please enlighten me.