Conference wahoo::fishing-v2

    This subject has been widely discussed in the rec.outdoors.fishing...
    newsgroups. Of all the commentary/threats/bluster/hyperbole, the only
    reasonable reaction that makes any sense to me is: if harassed, I'll
    fish somewhere else...Fisherpeople outnumber "People Eating Tasty
    Animals" (oops - that's a different topic ;^) so I doubt that they can
    cover all the good water in the NE area...
    
    What must be avoided is reactionary activity that will only get these
    fruits the publicity that they seek. The first time some fisherperson
    takes aim with a lead eyed fly and boinks a PETA nut in the skull, you
    can bet that the police and judiciary will get involved one way or the
    other, thus providing the high-vis pedestal that PETA seeks...
    
    (The second most reasonable suggestion, fwiw: if the PETA nuts are
    determined to tail you, take 'em on the grand tour of the deep woods,
    and then lose them. A nite spent wandering around in the cold might
    take the edge off their zealousness....)
    
    Anyway...I'm more concerned about the stealth legislation that the PETA
    nuts are behind: they have been trying to get a petition on the
    November ballot that would obstensibly ban leghold traps, and bear
    hunting using dogs. They've really been pushing the first point - using
    all kinds of undocumented (or completely false) "cases" of family pets
    being caught in these traps (they've already been caught using a
    road-killed cat as one of their alleged cases). But it sounds good to
    the mall-walkers that sign these petitions...
    
    However, another part of the legislation - and not touted with as much
    publicity - is a change to state law that would remove the requirement
    that at least 5 members of the state F&W commission be sporting license
    holders (hunting or fishing). This would more readily facilitate PETA
    nuts to gain a significant footing on the commission, and lord only
    knows where that might lead...
    
    Be prepared, keep your cool, and perhaps pack a compass ;^)
    
    /dave

    
    Rick, below is a letter to the editor I sent in concerning the
    "Wildlife protection Act" as it's called. I personally know of
    2 people who signed an anti trapping petition from PETA who then
    learned later that the petition also bans fishing. Now they wish they
    hadn't signed it. What amazes me is that one of them said he felt
    that traps with teeth should be banned. He didnt know that they're
    already banned and have been for years. Anyway this "act" would ban
    fishing, trapping and some froms of hunting plus put anti's on
    the F&W board of directors. My opinion is that they are calling this
    the Wildlife protection act in hopes of getting a large number of
    people to vote for it on its title alone. I think they figure most
    people wont bother to read the fine print. There are some groups in MA
    trying to get the word out to as many people as possible. GOAL, The
    Concerned citizens cooalition(?) to name a couple. These folks
    (PETA) are a seriuos threat to fishing/trapping/hunting. They are going
    as far as brining in a guy from England who successfully has fishing
    banned in some area's there. I got some stuff on PETA from the internet
    yesterday, very scary how they think. I'll post the views on fishing
    when I have a chance. (actually I have to go find it again, I think
    I deleted it after I lost my lunch).

    
    Walt

The Wildlife Protection Act. Sounds harmless doesn't it? In fact it sounds 
like something you'd want to vote for. Afterall who doesn't want to protect 
our wildlife? It's too bad the sponsors of this act are lying to you, this 
is not about protecting wildlife it is about banning fishing/trapping and  
some forms of hunting.

Thanks to the Pittman-Roberts Act and the revenue from hunting/fishing/trapping 
licenses we as sportsmen have raised over 6 BILLION dollars for wildlife 
management. The US Dept of Fish and Wildlife along with each states own
version of this dept have managed wildlife to the point where we now have 
turkeys in all 48 lower states. There are more deer in the US now then when 
Columbus landed here. Moose populations are up as are Elk, Bear, Mountain Lion,
antelope and many other game and non-game species. 

If this act and others like it were to pass the moneys spent by sportsman to 
accomplish these feats would stop. Then where would the money come from? A 
government who is trying to cut costs at every corner? From the sponsors of 
this act? No, the money would simply cease to come in and the animals would 
suffer for it. We as humans have had and continue to have an impact on 
wildlife, it is our responsibility to correctly manage our wildlife to 
maintain healthy populations. Groups such as the People for the Ethical 
Treatment of Animals (PETA) don't want us to be involved in the management 
process but we have to be if we want to preserve what we have accomplished.  


Here in MA, PETA is spearheading an effort to ban fishing, trapping and some 
forms of hunting. They plan on verbally assaulting you, throwing rocks and 
maneuvering boats in front of you while you fish. They are a serious threat to 
the future of all our wildlife here in MA. If they succeed  all the work that 
we as sportsmen and citizens of this state have done will be for naught. We 
must stop them and vote against the Wildlife Protection Act this coming 
November.

       	In general, I would think that there would be a law against someone
    intentionally trying to prevent you from engaging in a legal activity,
    such as fishing.

    	If you can get the local police involved fast enough, perhaps you 
    can have them arrested for harassment. If you're bass fishing under
    the power of a trolling motor, isn't there also a law regarding safe
    passing distances too ? 

    	Regardless of what we say or do here, you know that this is likely
    to erupt into a physical confrontation somewhere. Not sure of what value
    any press would be along the lines of "Person gets assaulted harassing 
    fishermen". It could actually harm their cause just as easily as helping 
    it. Especially if they go after petition signatures and identify 
    themselves as  PETA members/supporters after getting this sort of press. 
    Kind of diminishes some of the "stealth and misconception" they're 
    engaging in now.

    	Ray

    I tell you what, if I was fishing by myself, I'd move.  But if I was
    with my kids, and I thought for a moment that they're actions could
    lead to any harm on my kids part,  I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to 
    do what ever was needed to protect their safety and mine.  This
    would include the use of "Deadly Force" if necessary !!!  I have no 
    problems letting a judge and jury decide the outcome.
    
    						Gary

    I've run into them twice while hunting (Not petu but anti's). Once
    while I was at the Quabbin hunt. Some FRUITCAKE put on this stupid deer
    costume and started running through the woods. State Troopers were
    running through the woods with mega phones screaming to not do
    anything. Patty Wagon and 5th floor for that one. They also slashed a
    bunch of tires before the hunt while guys were scouting. I was the only
    one they spared as everyone else had trucks I had my Ford Escort
    because the truck was in the shop. They must of thought I was one of
    them.
    
    There are plenty of ways to sabotage boat launches and pesture shore
    guys. Then if they take to boats like Green Peace people....... 
    
    Keel Hawl 'em
    Bob M�

    Gee, isn't what you all expect PETA folks to do exactly what water
    skiers do as a matter of routine?
    
    How many PETA activists do you all expect there to be?
    
    I mean, I'm an environmental activist, and I attend more than my fair
    share of meetings with activists of all kinds (some of whom clearly
    lack any connection with the planet I live on), yet I've never met
    anybody from PETA anywhere in New England.
    
    Not that I want to dampen anybody's opportunity to vent, but how
    realistic do you all expect harrassment of anglers by PETA activists to be?
    
    John H-C

    
    John the majority of PETA folks involved in this do not come from
    MA., they are even bringing in a guy from England to help out.
    But they (PETA) and others have banned mountain lion hunting in CAL,
    attacked hunting/trapping in Arizona, attacked and I believe
    successfully banned bear hunting with dogs in CO. They are a serious
    threat here in MA, and they will lie to people in order to get their
    agenda's passed. Just like  they did in the other states. I think
    this will blow up in their face but you never know, it's something
    we need to keep and eye on.
    
    
    Walt
                          

    	Since I didn't see a :-)...
    
    	As far as water skiers, the difference is that they are just 
    out to have fun on the water too. They aren't there with the sole
    purpose and intent of ruining someones day like these people are.
    
    	As far as running into them in NH, I doubt many will. I would expect 
    if they were to target NH it would probably be a one-shot deal on
    one of the the bigger bass lakes like Massebesic or Pawtuckaway. If
    they make the mistake of going to Massebesic, the police station in
    Auburn is within walking distance of the shore near the Auburn Market.
    
    	On Pawtuckaway, they better know the lake because a local fishermen
    can probably lead them to more than a few places to trash a lower unit.
    Ditto with Massebesic, and that's something that they can't do a thing
    about. If they go to Winni, I think they have a Coast Guard or Marine
    Police stationed there all the time which can probably be raised on
    VHF.
    	
    	Personally, I think I probably have a better chance of winning
    Megabucks than seeing one of them. If it was a one time thing and they
    were in power boats, I'd probably just go someplace they couldn't in my 
    canoe (like across the street from me) that was carry in only.
    
    	I can't really say what I'd do if I did run into them. As I get
    older, I tend to go for legal options first rather than the "beat the 
    crap out of them" approach ;-) Again, if they're the ones that get
    locked up it's generally considered bad press, which isn't likely 
    to help their cause.
    
    	RAYJ
    

A common mistake that's made and one that is hinted at in this string is
confusing these fruitcakes from PETA with "environmentalists."  I'm proud 
to consider myself an environmentalist.  It's another matter altogether 
to advocate (among other zaney ideas) the complete liberation of all 
domesticated animals - no vaccines, no licenses, no pasture fencing to 
"restrain" the poor things.  If these clowns get their way, it'll be illegal 
to own a dog some day.

I'm not anticpating much of a problem on the river.  Their methods are
much more subtle and downright deceptive because they know that if their
position were to be debated openly, they'd be ridiculed into oblivion.  

Watch your local schools in the fall for literature passed to children and 
pressure to teach courses in the "ethical" treatment of animals.  These 
measures are on their agenda.  This is yet another group of malcontents
that see schools as the labs of social reengineering.

In the meantime... wet a line!

Bob

    
    	I have never met anyone from PETA anywhere , but have seen
    	them on TV dressed as lobsters picketing a eatery in Boston.
    
    
    	I concur with Gary.  If they show move on,  If my family is
    	with me , I'll let the Judge decide...
    
    	Environmental Nazis must be stopped.  I am a Master Instructor for
    	the AREP program ( MAss Fisheries and Wildlife) and cannot see how
    	the citizens of this country could "EVER" want to stop their
    	children from the enjoyment of fishing.  
    
    	Tell everyone you know about this and ask them to vote "NO" on any
    	ballot issue that tries to manage conservation without knowledge
    	or truthfullness.
    
    					Lefty.
    

Please stop referring to these people as "environmentalists"... Nazi or
otherwise.  It's a whole differnet agenda.

If you don't get the story straight, how do you expect the average 
citizen (who probably has never hunted or fished) in next November's
election to get it straight?

Bob

    well,.... I *DO* know PETA people, my daughters, who I raised
    fishing with me. They never hunted, but both shot guns in their earlier
    years. They are vegie-heads now since their early teens, but see no fault 
    in me eating fish, although they are happier when I practice C-n-R .
    Extremism on any side of the fence does no one any good. Every
    issue, be it on the ballot or in a discussion, needs looking at sanely. 
    The majority of PETA are against things like shoving wires thru monkey
    spines and sending them into space to die a slow death so the effects
    of space on bones and marrow can be studied, a study that NASA readily
    admits they have enough data on from over 400 maned space flights. 
    Most are not against fishing, many are not against hunting, in a sane ,
    responsible way (aren't we as sportsmen concerned with some of the same
    ethics??) There have been two confirmed "actions" by PETA here in
    Colorado in the last few years, 1. An unsuccesful protest when the 
    Air Force Acadamy opened it's grounds to deer hunting, and 
    2. a succesful lobbying of the public to curtail spring bear hunts 
    and the use of dogs (which I disagree with 100%). All other reported
    events of "antis" and  PETA, that I've heard of and checked into, have
    merly been locals yahooing it up during hunting season...guides blame
    "antis", falsly feeding the fires further (say that 10 times fast!)
    Wardens in the PArk County area have told me this. 
    
    My PETA daughters support such organizations as Mission:Wolf in
    COlorado and did not support such stupid actions as turning the control
    of depredatating animals from the DOW over to the Dept of Agriculture. 
    
    There are good, ethical sportsmen and there are *tons* of slob
    sportsmen...I think we need to look at the good and bad of any issue,
    and i think PETA has some good points.....but!!!!
    
         STOPPING FISHING AND HUNTING IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!!
    
    I won't stoop to violence unless someone is trying to hurt me and mine,
    a rock thrown in my families general direction only warrents a finger
    and a rock back...not violence. 
    
    deadhead_looking for that monster brown in Blue Mesa this weekend

    
    In Mass the anti harassment law is even under scrutiny. We had a judge
    in worc County rule that it's not constitutional. The case involved
    duck hunting on Eagle Lake in Holden, Ma. Needless to say I know this
    judge and he's anti gun, anti hunting, anti sportsman.
    
    Bob

    re: -1  Needless to say I know this judge and he's anti gun, anti 
    	    hunting, anti sportsman.
    
    
    No problem.  Take him out and shoot him!  8^)

<    in worc County rule that it's not constitutional. The case involved
<    duck hunting on Eagle Lake in Holden, Ma. Needless to say I know this
<    judge and he's anti gun, anti hunting, anti sportsman.
    
Bob,

No flame, just curious...

    Can you fill in any details about this one.  I lived in Holden for 13 years
and am fairly familiar with Eagle Lake.  As built up as over half the shoreline
is, where could you shoot and either not be within 500' of a dwelling OR have
homes down range (albeit a bit out of range of birdshot?)  On the SW shoreline
you have the street (Causeway St.??, the back way to Rutland). On the south
side you have Eagle Lake park and One Mill Place.  To the east you have
Kendall Road, leaving only the south side from the end of Kendall to the
beginning of Causeway St.  The lake is not very big.  I don't think I'd like
those duck hunters either if I lived there.  The water on the west side of
Causeway Street is just as bad with the Jefferson school to the south and homes
to the west. 

    How much was anti-hunting bias and how much was poor judgement by those
wanting to hunt there?

Al

    I'm really interested in this topic...
    
    Dave Tatosion, can U give some more info on the "false cases" PETA has
    used in their fight against leg-hold traps?
    
    Walt Bing, can U find and post the internet stuff about fishing and
    PETA??
    
    .14  and .16.... not living in MA and therefore not really knowing what
    I'm talking about, but sounds like another case of lost habitat due to
    growth and building. Where I'm setting right now, in CX03, used to be
    outside city limits...I knew a guy who deer hunted right where CX03 is
    located...now it's inside city limits...still a few deer (actually lots
    by some standards) but no hunting them now except by accident with yer
    car.
    
    deadhead

    re eagle lake:
    
     I think it was a situation where the noise caused more of a scare
    than any danger from anyone being hurt ??? Reports I saw was that 
    the hunters were in legal hunting area (perhaps even out in a boat ?)
    
    It was just a case of people near the lake perceiving a much greater
    danger than there really was. Soooo.. someone took it upon themselves
    to harass the hunter(s) and scare away the ducks, etc. Case goes to
    court and the judge rules that the harassment law in unconstitutional
    because the anti is just exercising his 1st amendment right to run
    around and yell at ducks while someone else just happens to be hunting.
    
     This is mostly from memory.. I may have a few details off but the
    the main point is that we have a judge who is challanging hunter (and
    therefore perhaps even fisherman) harassment laws. This is sad because
    the theory behind the harassment law is you don't wan't tempers to
    flare in the middle of a hunting situation - nothing good can come out
    of it. Likewise - if fisherman start to get harassed - It could be 
    a dangerous situation.
    
    
     Bob
    

    
    I got two articles from PETA. Unfortuneatley they are more then 80
    width so I have to correct them. I will put them in soon.
    
    Walt

 

Wildlife #4 

Fishing:
Aquatic Agony 



That human beings regard some kinds of fishes as "pets" and others as objects 
of sport or consumption is one of
society's many inconsistent attitudes toward animals. Fishes can and do feel pa
in, and it seems logical that
they be accorded the same protection from suffering that all animals deserve. 
Yet millions of fishes annually are
subjected to severe pain and stress by the commercial fishing industry and in 
"sport" or "recreational" fishing. 

The Painful Reality

"Sport" fishing generally refers to fishing with a rod and reel, but may 
include the use of bows and arrows, small
nets, spears, or guns. This bloodsport survives partly because of the 
misconception that fishes don't feel pain.
Fishes (and other cold-blooded animals) do not express pain and suffering in 
ways that humans easily
recognize (although they indeed gasp and struggle when caught), but pain is a 
biological necessity that is as
well developed in fishes as in mammals. Moreover, fishes have been known to go
 out of their way, and even
risk their own lives, to aid others in trouble. 

Fishes' lips and tongues can be compared to human hands in some ways; fishes 
use them to catch or gather
food, build nests, and even hide their offspring from danger. These uses 
require a well-developed tactile
sensitivity that is severely damaged by needle-sharp barbed hooks. Hooked 
fishes struggle out of fear and
physical pain.(1) "Anglers" also often callously impale their victims on a 
"stringer" and dangle them in water so
that they won't die quickly and "spoil." Others are left to suffocate. 

Furthermore, fishes who are released suffer such severe physiological and 
psychological stress from being
"played," often for long periods, that they "may die even though [they manage]
 to swim away, or...may be so
weakened [they are] easy prey for other predators."(2) Many trout streams are 
so intensely fished that they
are subject to "catch and release" regulations requiring that all fishes 
caught must be let go; the aquatic animals
in these streams are likely to spend their entire short lives being repeatedly
 traumatized and injured. 

The many species used for bait also suffer. In addition to worms (who, it is 
now known, produce endorphins, a
physical response to pain), live clams, pieces of other fishes ("chum"), and 
live eels are also commonly used as
bait, and chickens' necks and "bull lips" (which are exactly that) are 
becoming increasingly popular in
commercial fishing. 

Human Health?

Eating the flesh of fishes causes health problems for people. Like the flesh 
of other animals, it contains
excessive amounts of protein, fat, and cholesterol, and can cause food 
allergies. Naturally occurring toxins (e.g.,
"red tides") can even be fatal to humans.(3) 

Fishes (including shellfishes) can accumulate extremely high levels of 
chemical residues, as much as 9 million
times that of the water in which they live.(4) Fish flesh may store 
contaminants such as PCBs, strongly
suspected of causing cancer, nervous system disorders, and fetal damage; 
dioxins, also linked to cancer;
radioactive substances like strontium 90; and toxic metals like cadmium, 
mercury, lead, chromium, and arsenic,
which can cause health problems ranging from kidney damage and impaired mental
 development to cancer.(5) 

Those who claim they fish because they love to be outdoors, or love the water,
 must realize that we can enjoy
nature without killing others, by hiking, camping, swimming, canoeing, 
snorkeling, or scuba diving. Fishing does
not teach appreciation for the outdoors, it instills or reinforces 
insensitivity toward free living animals and life in
general. 

Commercial fishing is commonly thought of as a way to feed people, but in fact 
more than half of all fish caught
are ground up and fed to livestock.(6) 

Commercial Carnage

Modern commercial fishing, with its elaborate, sophisticated technology, has a 
devastating impact on the
environment. Even though the large numbers of fishes caught in "sport" fishing
 can have adverse effects on an
ecosystem, the damage done by the industry which has been likened to "ocean 
strip-mining," is monumental. 

Nearly one-third of all species of fish have declined in population in the 
last 15 years and many species may be
wiped out in the next decade.(7) In New England, overfishing has drastically 
changed the population of fish.
Scientists say that a change in the population of any one species of fish, 
particularly those at the top of the food
chain, can have unforeseen effects on marine environments, disrupting 
ecosystems and affecting birds, marine
mammals, and smaller organisms that depend on fish and their habitats to 
survive. 

Each day during fishing season, almost 1,700 ships worldwide set more than 
20,000 miles of large scale
monofilament plastic gillnet, or driftnet, in the open ocean.(8) Much of this
 more than one million miles of net is
left in the sea and kills countless animals other than the marine species it 
is intended to catch. An estimated
100,000 seals, whales, and porpoises, and a million birds every year become 
entangled in the nets and
drown.(9) 

Because dolphins habitually swim with schools of yellowfin tuna, the tuna 
fishing industry drowns at least
20,000 of these sensitive, intelligent marine mammals in its nets annually.
(10) Sea turtles, in addition to being
speared and harpooned for their meat, flippers, and shells, are killed 
incidentally by the thousands by shrimp
trawlers. Seals, otters, and dolphins who "interfere" with commercial catches 
are sometimes shot.(11) 

Furthermore, fishing and the ever-increasing problem of overfishing disrupt 
the natural balance vital to the life
of the world's oceans. Plankton and algae, responsible for oxygen-carbon 
dioxide cycles, are dependent on
fishes to maintain their normal biological function. And, by disrupting the 
oceanic ecosystem, fishing deprives
other marine species of food they need to survive. 

What You Can Do

Like hunting or bullfighting, "sport" fishing entertains at the expense of 
innocent animals. The fishing industry
regards the animals it catches as "resources" rather than sensitive 
individuals with needs of their own. Given
the suffering fishing inflicts, the health hazards to humans who eat fishes' 
flesh, and the heavy toll fishing
exacts from all aquatic species and the environment, it makes sense not to 
fish, and not to eat fishes. 

References

 1. Fox, Michael W., "Do Fish Have Feelings?", The Animals' Agenda, July/August
 1987, p. 24. 
 2. The New York Times, July 14, 1988. 
 3. McDougall, John A., The McDougall Plan, p. 42. 
 4. Robbins, John, Diet For A New America, p. 331. 
 5. Brody, Jane E., "Safety Questions About Eating Fish," New York Times, 
June 12, 1991. 
 6. Ibid. 
 7. "Fishing and Pollution Imperil Coastal Fish, Several Studies Find," 
New York Times, July 16, 1991. 
 8. "Driftnets," Greenpeace Wildlife Series, 1987. 
 9. "Driftnet Carnage," Howl, Summer 1987. 
 10. "Tuna Fishing Threatens Dolphins," Greenpeace Wildlife Series. 
 11. "Driftnet Carnage," op.cit. 


            

         People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
P.O. Box 42516, Washington, DC 20015
301-770-PETA 

Wildlife #4 

Fishing:
Aquatic Agony 



    That human beings regard some kinds of fishes as "pets" and others as
    objects  of sport or consumption is one of society's many inconsistent
    attitudes toward animals. Fishes can and do feel pa in, and it seems
    logical that they be accorded the same protection from suffering that
    all animals deserve.  Yet millions of fishes annually are subjected to
    severe pain and stress by the commercial fishing industry and in 
    "sport" or "recreational" fishing. 

The Painful Reality

    "Sport" fishing generally refers to fishing with a rod and reel, but
    may  include the use of bows and arrows, small nets, spears, or guns.
    This bloodsport survives partly because of the  misconception that
    fishes don't feel pain. Fishes (and other cold-blooded animals) do not
    express pain and suffering in  ways that humans easily recognize
    (although they indeed gasp and struggle when caught), but pain is a 
    biological necessity that is as well developed in fishes as in mammals.
    Moreover, fishes have been known to go out of their way, and even risk
    their own lives, to aid others in trouble. 

    Fishes' lips and tongues can be compared to human hands in some ways;
    fishes  use them to catch or gather food, build nests, and even hide
    their offspring from danger. These uses  require a well-developed
    tactile sensitivity that is severely damaged by needle-sharp barbed
    hooks. Hooked  fishes struggle out of fear and physical pain.(1)
    "Anglers" also often callously impale their victims on a  "stringer"
    and dangle them in water so that they won't die quickly and "spoil."
    Others are left to suffocate. 

    Furthermore, fishes who are released suffer such severe physiological
    and  psychological stress from being "played," often for long periods,
    that they "may die even though [they manage] to swim away, or...may be
    so weakened [they are] easy prey for other predators."(2) Many trout
    streams are  so intensely fished that they are subject to "catch and
    release" regulations requiring that all fishes  caught must be let go;
    the aquatic animals in these streams are likely to spend their entire
    short lives being repeatedly traumatized and injured. 

    The many species used for bait also suffer. In addition to worms (who,
    it is  now known, produce endorphins, a physical response to pain),
    live clams, pieces of other fishes ("chum"), and  live eels are also
    commonly used as bait, and chickens' necks and "bull lips" (which are
    exactly that) are  becoming increasingly popular in commercial fishing. 

Human Health?

    Eating the flesh of fishes causes health problems for people. Like the
    flesh  of other animals, it contains excessive amounts of protein, fat,
    and cholesterol, and can cause food  allergies. Naturally occurring
    toxins (e.g., "red tides") can even be fatal to humans.(3) 

    Fishes (including shellfishes) can accumulate extremely high levels of 
    chemical residues, as much as 9 million times that of the water in
    which they live.(4) Fish flesh may store  contaminants such as PCBs,
    strongly suspected of causing cancer, nervous system disorders, and
    fetal damage;  dioxins, also linked to cancer; radioactive substances
    like strontium 90; and toxic metals like cadmium,  mercury, lead,
    chromium, and arsenic, which can cause health problems ranging from
    kidney damage and impaired mental development to cancer.(5) 

    Those who claim they fish because they love to be outdoors, or love the
    water, must realize that we can enjoy nature without killing others, by
    hiking, camping, swimming, canoeing,  snorkeling, or scuba diving.
    Fishing does not teach appreciation for the outdoors, it instills or
    reinforces  insensitivity toward free living animals and life in
    general. 

    Commercial fishing is commonly thought of as a way to feed people, but
    in fact  more than half of all fish caught are ground up and fed to
    livestock.(6) 

Commercial Carnage

    Modern commercial fishing, with its elaborate, sophisticated
    technology, has a  devastating impact on the environment. Even though
    the large numbers of fishes caught in "sport" fishing can have adverse
    effects on an ecosystem, the damage done by the industry which has been
    likened to "ocean  strip-mining," is monumental. 

    Nearly one-third of all species of fish have declined in population in
    the  last 15 years and many species may be wiped out in the next
    decade.(7) In New England, overfishing has drastically  changed the
    population of fish. Scientists say that a change in the population of
    any one species of fish,  particularly those at the top of the food
    chain, can have unforeseen effects on marine environments, disrupting 
    ecosystems and affecting birds, marine mammals, and smaller organisms
    that depend on fish and their habitats to  survive. 

    Each day during fishing season, almost 1,700 ships worldwide set more
    than  20,000 miles of large scale monofilament plastic gillnet, or
    driftnet, in the open ocean.(8) Much of this more than one million
    miles of net is left in the sea and kills countless animals other than
    the marine species it  is intended to catch. An estimated 100,000
    seals, whales, and porpoises, and a million birds every year become 
    entangled in the nets and drown.(9) 

    Because dolphins habitually swim with schools of yellowfin tuna, the
    tuna  fishing industry drowns at least 20,000 of these sensitive,
    intelligent marine mammals in its nets annually. (10) Sea turtles, in
    addition to being speared and harpooned for their meat, flippers, and
    shells, are killed  incidentally by the thousands by shrimp trawlers.
    Seals, otters, and dolphins who "interfere" with commercial catches 
    are sometimes shot.(11) 

    Furthermore, fishing and the ever-increasing problem of overfishing
    disrupt  the natural balance vital to the life of the world's oceans.
    Plankton and algae, responsible for oxygen-carbon  dioxide cycles, are
    dependent on fishes to maintain their normal biological function. And,
    by disrupting the  oceanic ecosystem, fishing deprives other marine
    species of food they need to survive. 

What You Can Do

    Like hunting or bullfighting, "sport" fishing entertains at the expense
    of  innocent animals. The fishing industry regards the animals it
    catches as "resources" rather than sensitive  individuals with needs of
    their own. Given the suffering fishing inflicts, the health hazards to
    humans who eat fishes'  flesh, and the heavy toll fishing exacts from
    all aquatic species and the environment, it makes sense not to  fish,
    and not to eat fishes. 

References

 1. Fox, Michael W., "Do Fish Have Feelings?", The Animals' Agenda, July/August
 1987, p. 24. 
 2. The New York Times, July 14, 1988. 
 3. McDougall, John A., The McDougall Plan, p. 42. 
 4. Robbins, John, Diet For A New America, p. 331. 
 5. Brody, Jane E., "Safety Questions About Eating Fish," New York Times, 
June 12, 1991. 
 6. Ibid. 
 7. "Fishing and Pollution Imperil Coastal Fish, Several Studies Find," 
New York Times, July 16, 1991. 
 8. "Driftnets," Greenpeace Wildlife Series, 1987. 
 9. "Driftnet Carnage," Howl, Summer 1987. 
 10. "Tuna Fishing Threatens Dolphins," Greenpeace Wildlife Series. 
 11. "Driftnet Carnage," op.cit. 

                           
            

         People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
P.O. Box 42516, Washington, DC 20015
301-770-PETA 


    

    re: .17
    
    You'd have to dig into the archives of the Boston Globe, as the article
    covering a review of the petition for a spot on the November ballot was
    in there (had to be at least a couple of months ago). The article was
    an airing-out the list of issues that the petitionors were trying to
    address.
    
    Amongst other things, it related a small sample of trumped-up or 
    outright phony claims that the petitioneers were using to make their case
    about leghold traps and family pets. A poster had used a photo of a 
    mauled cat that supposedly had been killed in a trap - but turned
    out to have actually been a roadkill victim. Another claim of family
    pet cat killed by a trap was actually the victim of a dog pack...
    
    /dave

    I read the posted article from PETA in .16. I saw nothing at all wrong 
    or even misleading in it. If this is really a reflection of their
    perspective, maybe the *real* problem is with their media techniques?
    
    John H-C

    RE:16 Maybe we should ban blue fish because they don't eat in an
    "ethical" fashion...
    
    
    
    					Jim

There have been instances of people hasseling fishermen on the western end of 
Lake Ontario that met with "aggressive" reactions by the fisherman ( charter 
boats)! 

Most of these guys carry a weapon on board (for protection from drug 
runners), and are not timid soles when it comes to protecting their fishing 
charter business. A few sail boats cutting lines repeatedly have had 12 ga 
flare guns bounced off and thru their mains.

In the last couple years, there seems to have been a total absence of people 
messing with fishermen ---- wonder why ????

Don

    Fishes' lips and tongues can be compared to human hands in some ways;
    fishes  use them to catch or gather food, build nests, and even hide
    their offspring from danger. These uses  require a well-developed
    tactile sensitivity that is severely damaged by needle-sharp barbed
    hooks. Hooked  fishes struggle out of fear and physical pain.(1)

I've seen many a a codfish with a lobster, crab or starfish in its belly.  These
creatures were obviously not caught and swallowed with these sensitive lips and
tongues.  Dorsal spines of spiny fish must not hurt like a fish hook either.

    "can be compared to human hands in some ways..."

    Their position can be considered to be a hand job in some ways, too.

That was priceless, Mark!

     The efforts of PETA was discussed at the Wrangler national last month.
    One thing that came out of it was they have the ABA National on
    Winnipeaukee on their list of potential sites to cause problems.
    
     They want to be confronted. They will get as much press out of it
    as possible. If you ignore something long enough it will die without
    attention. This is what BASS is promoting.
    
     In this month's Bassmasters is an article on this movement.
    Someone did a psychological profile of these people.
    They are someone who is frustrated in their everyday life and feel
    a need to be part of something that can impose restrictions on others.
    They are true believers that what they are doing is for the good of
    mankind. Without recognition these people go away. Get the word out
    to your neighbors friends and co-workers that the Wildlife Act is 
    a Wolf in sheeps clothing. Also let your Senators and house of
    representatives know that there are 110 million Sportsmen in the US
    that's a lot of votes.
    
     Regards
    
     DonB,

    re. 30
    
    Don, what your saying makes perfectly good sense and I agree with it. 
    But on the other hand, some of the extremes I've heard these types go
    through to get there point across, can't be ignored.
    
    I personally believe anyone or any group has a right to be heard.  How 
    they choose to do this is my issue.  I would not tolerate anybody 
    infringing on my "Rights" to engage in any lawful activity such as 
    Fishing.  Maybe I'm old fashion.  It's ok that you don't agree with
    my fishing, but don't get "In my Face" so to speak, or try to disrupt
    my activities enough where personal harm could result.  I still feel in
    the later, I have as much right to go to extremes to protect myself, as
    they do trying to disrupt me.    
                                			Gary

    re:
    some of the extremes I've heard these types go
        through to get there point across, can't be ignored.
    
    it remains to be seen exactly what the "extremes" are to be...having
    "heard" of and actually seeing and experianceing so called "extremes" 
    are two different things. Just as in the "right vs left" disscussions,
    sensationalism and emotionalism, although having their place, usually 
    lead to further misunderstandings and misconceptions. Me..I'll wait and
    see just how far someone is willing to go before i react, both verbally
    and physically. 
    
    deadhead
    see 

    
    
 I remembered this morning about posting the following replies a few years
    back. The replies describe some of PETA's and other anti groups acts.
    I had to use refrences at the time to back up my claims so you will
    notice pointers to magazine articles here and there. You will also
    notice in PETA's pamphlet their blatant disregard for personal property 
    and the law. 
    
    Walt
    
    
    
    
         <<< VMSZOO::DISK$NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NEW_HAMPSHIRE.NOTE;2 >>>
                             -< The Granite State >-
================================================================================
Note 1432.1823                     NH Hunting                       1823 of 2326
LUDWIG::BING                                        240 lines  17-OCT-1994 13:49
                        -< Straight from PETA'S mouth >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    
    
  Other article's besides this, Nov 1993 Buckmasters, May 1990 American
    Hunter. I can find more references if this isn't good enough.
    
    
    Walt
    
    
Article         6339
From: [email protected] (Thomas Alan Swenson)                   
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: PETA Pamphlet
Date: 7 May 90 00:04:01 GMT
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
 
seI got hold of a pamphlet published by the anti-hunting group
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).  Note that
their tactics for sabotaging hunts include; enacting gun control
laws (in the interest of "public safety"), vandalism of hunter's
property, and indoctrination of kids into their movement through
the public schools.  I'm going to use it as proof that the anti-
hunters are in league with the anti-gunners.  
 
You will undoubtedly note the depiction of us sportsmen as
"violent", "perverse" and careless.  They also lie about the
Pittman-Robertson Act.  They say that those funds come from
"general tax revenues".  
 
They also fail to mention their other activities such as,
breaking into research laboratories or, the infamous Question 3
in Massachusetts last year.  For those of you who don't live in
the P.R.M., Question 3 was a referendum that would have placed a
heavy regulatory burden on farmers who keep animals.  The few
farmers that are left here organized and got it defeated by a
wide margin.  These people are self-righteous SCUM!   
 
Tom Swenson
[email protected]
 
Freedom of the press is great -- If you own the press.
 
Disclaimer?  Kiss my , I'm paying for my mail.
 
(start of pamphlet)
================================================================
 
             [ drawing of deer being chased by dogs]
 
 
 
 
                             How to 
 
                         SABOTAGE HUNTS
 
                 a guide for defending wild life
 
                       [drawing of a fox]
 
 
                      [drawing of a rabbit]
 
A small but violent minority known as American hunters invade
public and private land each year for the purpose of killing
animals for fun and profit.  Approximately 20 million hunters -
less than 10 percent of the American population - engage in
annual offensives against our wildlife, at great cost to animal
lives and the environment.  Their 70 million annual victims
include deer, bears, moose, rabbits, ducks, geese, squirrels, and
other wildlife, as well as dogs, cats, cows, occasional hikers,
and even a few of their fellow hunters.  Hunters also leave
behind many wounded and crippled animals.
 
Because hunted animals cannot defend themselves against the
technologies used by hunters, concerned citizens must become
active on their behalf.  There are many ways that you can protect
wildlife by thwarting hunters.
 
1.   Deny hunters the land to hunt on.  Encourage your neighbors,
     especially those who own large tracts such as farms and
     ranches, to post their land ad forbid hunting.  Show then
     that hunters invariably cause more damage to agriculture
     than wild animals do.
 
2.   For special hunts that issue a limited number of permits,
     apply for these permits yourself.  The permits are usually
     awarded by a simple lottery selection.  If you're lucky,
     you'll win a permit and save an animal's life.
 
3.   Go into the woods the day before hunting season and try to
     drive wildlife away from      commonly hunted areas.  Play
     loud radios or recordings of wolf howls, and walk with dogs
     on leashes.  Such tactics are particularly important for
     younger animals who have not had the traumatizing experience
     of being hunted.
 
4.   Plaster the floors of hunting blinds with cow dung, rotten
     eggs, or other unpleasant substances.  Tear down tree
     stands.
 
5.   To break potentially dangerous wildlife habits, place deer
     repellent (available at feed and hardware stores) along deer
     tracks, which hunters use to stalk them.  This will
     encourage the deer to move away. Or, just scoop up a bag of
     human hair from a barber shop and hang handfuls of it in
     little mesh bags about two or three feet from the ground,
     along the deer track.
 
6.   If hunters use dogs in your area.  Try to get hold of a
     female dog in heat and lead her, on a leash through heavily
     hunted areas.  Male hunting dogs will get wind of the female
     and lose their enthusiasm for chasing rabbits, foxes, or
     deer.  Soak garlic cloves in water or make a lemon juice
     solution and using a spray bottle  spray leaves and trails
     to throw dogs off the scent.
 
                     [silhouette of a deer]
 
7.   Hunter often like to ambush animals by setting out food and
     then hiding in blinds.  Piles of apples and other "bait" are
     set up a few days before hunting season to encourage animals
     to linger in a certain area.  To thwart this, remove the
     food piles a few days before hunting season.  If there is
     too much food to carry away, spray it with deer repellent or
     human urine, and spread human hair clippings all over the
     area.
 
8    Encourage your municipality to pass an ordinance that bans,
     int the interest of public safety, the use of all weapons
     within it's limits.  Rifles, shotguns, and bows and arrows
     have been known to kill people too.
 
9.   During actual hunts assemble a group of people early in the
     morning and use airhorns and whistles to warn animals into
     hiding.  Groups of noisy people are very effective is
     disrupting hunts of all kinds.
 
10.  Develop strong anti-hunting sentiment in your community by
     writing letters to the editor of your local newspapers,
     meeting with neighbors, and getting on talk shows.  Post
     anti-hunting flyers in parks and other community areas.  Let
     your neighbors know that federal saw recognizes wild life as
     "belonging" to all people, most of whom don't hunt.  Don't
     let gun lobbies or hunting groups label you as "uninformed"
     or "sentimental:" There are many valid scientific and
     ecological arguments against hunting, so get the facts and
     publicize them.
 
11   Lobby for laws that require hunters to carry written
     permission from land owners to hunt on private land.  This
     reduces hunting areas because many farmers are reluctant to
     sign such permits, and absentee landowners like summer
     residents or corporations may be hard to reach.
 
12   Ask your congressional representatives to introduce bills
     prohibiting hunting and trapping on national wildlife
     refuges and all public land.  The majority of taxpayers
     should not subsidize the perverse pleasures of a violent
     minority.
 
13   Ask your governor to appoint non-hunters to state wildlife
     committees.  These important committees decide the fate of
     your state's wildlife, and should not be dominated by
     hunters.
 
14   Place stuffed animal toys around commonly hunted areas. 
     Hunters often don't take the time to determine if an animal
     is real.  Better to have a hole in a cotton rabbit than a
     real one -- and the noise of the gun going off will help
     scare away real animals.
 
15   Look for announcements of scheduled hunts in newspapers and
     magazines.  Contact the sponsors or local authorities and
     ask that the hunt be canceled both for animal and human
     safety.  Picket the entrance to the hunting grounds, and
     circulate petitions in neighboring areas.
 
16   If companion animals or property are hurt by hunters,
     contact an attorney and find out what your legal options
     are.  File official complaints or even lawsuits.  The threat
     of litigations is a good deterrent.
 
17   Educate your self and others by reading and distributing the
     books Man Kind? by Cleveland Amory and the American Hunting
     Myth by Ron Baker.  Ask public and school libraries to carry
     them, or donate copies (write PETA for details)
 
18   If the wildlife course "Project Wild is taught in your
     public schools, meet with teachers and school officials and
     ask them to    end it's use.  It's pro-hunting propaganda is
     not accurate, and by advocating slaughter it does not teach
     students proper  respect for life or the environment.
          
          "Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics,
          which is the goal of all evolution.  Until we
          stop harming all other living beings, we are
          still savages."
 
          Thomas A. Edison
 
                       [drawing of ducks]
 
                          HUNTING QUIZ
 
True or False?
 
*    Hunting is necessary to prevent wildlife overpopulation.
 
FALSE     Hunting stimulates breeding by disrupting natural
balances that ordinarily would keep populations stable.  Hunters
weaken species by pursuing the large healthy male animals that
keep the herd or group genetically strong.
 
*    Hunters pay for conservation programs that help wildlife.
 
FALSE     The "conservation" programs sponsored by state and
federal wildlife agencies exist for the benefit of hunters, not
animals.  These programs, 90 percent of which are paid for by
general tax revenues ( not hunting licenses), include the burning
and bulldozing of thousands of acres of public land to create 
grazing areas that attract "game" animals.  Their programs,
including the stocking of hunting areas with "desirable" species,
are designed to create a surplus of animals so that hunters have
a constant supply of targets - and excuses.
 
For more information about hunting or other animal related
issues contact"
 
                              PETA
                     PEOPLE FOR THE ETHICAL
                      TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
                         P.O. Box 42516
                      Washington, DC  20015
                         (202) 726-0156
 
(end of pamphlet)


         <<< VMSZOO::DISK$NOTES:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NEW_HAMPSHIRE.NOTE;2 >>>
                             -< The Granite State >-
================================================================================
Note 1432.1836                     NH Hunting                       1836 of 2326
LUDWIG::BING                                         71 lines  18-OCT-1994 12:49
                        -<  I hope this version is PC >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
 DB,
    the reason i put it in here was because in .1814 you said you had never
    heard of poisoned food being left out or other things that had
    happened to hunters and their property. Due to that note I was
    reminded of things I had read elsewhere so I put that, now deleted,
    reply in. I have since edited it, modified it and here it is.
    
    
           <<< MORTAL::$1$DIA1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]NEW_HAMPSHIRE.NOTE;3 >>>
                             -< The Granite State >-
================================================================================
Note 1432.1821                     NH Hunting                       1821 of 1834
LUDWIG::BING                                         36 lines  15-OCT-1994 09:04
                     -< Some anti's aren't angels either >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to GOAL the group Earth First published a
    pamphlet on how to discredit hunters. They said to buy bows/arrows
    and shotguns and during hunting season go out and shoot livestock
    thus making hunters look bad. They also said to stay away from rifles
    because bullets could be traced back to individual guns whereas bows/
    shotguns can't. When asked why they did it they said it was a joke.


    According to an article in the Oct 1993 issue of The American Hunter,.
    some members of PETA have put spikes in roads so as to cause
    flat tires, and left dog food with poison or ground glass in it for
    the hunting dogs to eat.  
    
         FWIW I dont think it's on every PETA members agenda to do these
         things. I tend to think that there are a few hard core anti's
         who would do this but they are far and few between. Just like
         slob hunters who shoot at white mittens are far and few between.
    
    According to newspaper accounts A couple years ago the Quabbin Receiver
    in MA was opened to hunting for the first time in 50 years or so.
    Before deer season opened there 11 vehicles had their tires slashed.
    The criminals thought they were getting hunters who were scouting
    for deer. Instead they got the bird watchers. Also some woman
    dressed up in a deer suit and tried to get herself shot by running
    around in the woods on opening day, instead she got a free 30 day
    vacation in a rubber room. Served her right too.

    According to an article in The American Hunter (I'm stilllooking for
    the issue) a book  was published two (?) years ago and was written by a 
    coward calling himself "Screaming Wolf".
    In it he said that in order to stop hunting "we" must make "them" afraid to
    go into the woods. So he suggested buying guns and going into the woods 
    and kill hunters. Just shoot them and leave their bodies there.
    See one of my earlier replies about Cleveland Armory saying the same
    thing.

    Maybe it was a joke maybe not. In the past few years there have been
    instances where hunters/hikers/fisherman were shot dead, several in
    Florida were robbed. Police believe a serial killer is responsible
    for the ones outside Fl, no suspects for any of the cases.
    (For more info on this check out the note on it in HUNTING)
    This according to many articles in The American Hunter/ American Rifleman.

 
    I guess my point is this, not all anti hunters are bad and not all
    hunters are bad. So let's not blame all or a majority on either side,
    because let's face it there are far more good people on both sides
    than bad, and you'll find that with a little respect, tolerance
    and understanding that we can all enjoy the outdoors together and
    safely.

    Walt

    Thanks for the info, but...
    
    I don't buy the refs you used...not much "fact" there. 
    
    Although I recognize Earth First as a radical Env. group, I question
    GOALs info sources, as  i question all without seeing it for myself. 
    
    and I question the Amer. Hunter's info sources too...PETA people would
    never poison a dog. That would be like one of us poisoning all the
    brookies in a pond in order to enhance the brown population. Some
    wackos might, but the majority of both hunters and PETA would be
    downright appalled at this.
    
    I doubt if Screaming Wolf has many supporters among PETA. 
    
    Pretty well accepted by law enforcement (from what I've read in NRA
    publications) that the AP murders and those in FLA are done by some
    wacko--doubt if PETA is involved. 
    
    Walt - the last paragraph in your note says what i've been trying to
    say this entire string...and what i reitterated in my last note prior
    to yours. 
    
    deadhead
    
    
    
    

    I would also like to add that I am against every single one of the
    PETA hunting "objectives" posted by Walt, too.
    
    deadhead

    
    re -1
    
    Sometimes the end justifies the means. I read in more than one
    publication about PETA poisoning dogs. Like I said tho, I dont think
    it's the vast majority of them that would do it just a few hard core
    members. As a gun owner I too have learned not to beleive a story
    unless it can be backed up with facts. Even things from the NRA/GOAL.
    The good thing about the NRA/GOAL is that they do usually give their
    sources, whereas HCi and others dont. But that's gun stuff and not what
    we are discussing here.
    
    Walt

    Does anybody who attends this conference (er, Notes File) actually know
    a PETA member? Lacking that, has anybody who attends this conference
    met and *spoken with* a PETA member?
    
    As I mentioned earlier, I "live in a world" peopled by folks I would
    expect to own up to PETA membership if they were party to it. I'm
    quoted in various newspapers often enough that I expect that I would
    have been contacted by somebody representing PETA a long time ago, if
    they were anywhere in the vicinity of New England. I've never been
    contacted, officially or unofficially. I've never even received junk
    mail or a real appeal via post. I get calls from government agencies
    and NGOs quite frequently, so I don't think my not hearing from PETA is
    a consequence of my name or my activities not having been spread
    around.
    
    In a nutshell, I suspect that much, if not most, of the rancor PETA
    (phantom org. just as insidious but much less real than the KGB in its
    glory days) invokes is really just resentment against neighbors who
    enjoy the distress and dismemberment of undomesticated creatures a lot
    less than those who do.
    
    N.B. I grew up hunting and fishing. "Clean what you kill, eat what you
    clean" is ingrained in my psyche, and I regard it as an honorable
    ethic. (A couple years ago, I felt the urge to pull off the road and 
    kill two beer-bellied bozos riding ATVs through a cornfield, rousting 
    and shooting ring-necks, but I couldn't see cleaning or eating the
    rednecks afterward. <g>)
    
    I ask, is there anybody who belongs to PETA reading this conference? If
    there is, please contact me by e-mail, just so I can report back to
    this group that PETA is not a phantom. I find it hard to believe that
    an international corporation with 62,000+ employees does not have
    members of organizations of every stripe among its contributors, and I
    find it even harder to believe that, if there are PETA members anywhere
    in this corporation, PETA doesn't monitor the Fishing and Hunting
    conferences.
    
    
    John H-C (who *has* met a few EF! folks, and respects them deeply,
    despite many of the fevered "accounts" of the sensationalist press)

    Not sure what you really mean by "phantom", John. While there may not
    be any PETA members frequenting this conference - or possibly even
    working in AltaVista (oops - I mean Digital ;^) the group does exist...
    
    See http://infoweb.internex.net/ipp/custom/peta/index.html
    

    re.37 ...see .13
    
    PETA is strong in Colorado...but their main focus is against the
    almost criminal acts of the cosmetic companies and NASA, who use
    animals for tests that even the most hardhearted would cringe at. 
    they have pushed their weight around with some of the hunting laws
    (like spring bear hunts). My daughters get the literature...never
    mentions attacks on fishing, does talk about their displeasure towards
    hunting,
    
    deadhead 

    
    RE: 495.37
    
     John reread note 13 in this string!
    
    
    Dave

    I never thouht it was hard to get any information on or from any
    environmentally aligned group. I joined my first environmental group
    around 1968 and today receive literature from more than 30 different
    organizations, each with their own agendas. 
    
    I would not call PETA an environmental organization,
    but I'll guarantee that they are buying those mailing
    lists. I get invitations to contribute to PETA three of four times a
    year. PETA is NOT on my contribution list so they are hitting me
    through general mailings off purchased lists in an attempt to drum up
    new membership.
    
    The most common PETA issues are (1) animal experimentation where pain
    and suffering occur (e.g. toxicity check of cosmetics by dropping samples
    into the eyes of restrained rabbits), (2) toothed leghold traps. I have
    yet to see any directed anti-hunting or anti-fishing literature from
    PETA. 
    
    Like any organization however, they may have their share of extreme
    zealots who establish their own agenda. I get the impression from what
    I have read (outside  of this Notes file) that PETA does not have a well 
    controlled national agenda but rather encourages local action for local 
    issues. This is a major shortcoming of the group and the primary reason 
    I won't contribute to them - one is never sure what PETA is going to do. 
    There have even been local cases where members have filed for
    injunctions against wildlife groups engaged in saving a species. Blind
    self righteous behavior coupled with ignorance  is an ugly combination.
    
    PETA, unfortunately, through it's exposure of some pretty horrific
    animal cruelty has a bad side effect of attracting horrified
    self-righteous, often ill-informed but outspoken kooks. 
    
    One thing we must keep in mind though. Good fishing, good hunting and
    sound conservation and environmental protection all go hand in hand.
    All these groups need to be allies - if divided, all will ultimately be
    conquered. We are all facing a variety of political dangers right now
    far more serious than anything PETA will succeed at. Loss of habit,
    loss of funding, rewrites or eradication of clean air, clean water, and
    species protection acts threatens all of our interests. I'm much more
    fearful of Congress righ now than I have ever been of PETA. 
    
    As mentioned before, I support more than two dozen environmental
    groups; I love to fish; I do not hunt; I own no guns; my 
    Sports Afield subscription is (I hate to admit this) 38 years old. I
    see no contradictions.    
    
                              

    
    Leg hold traps with teeth have been banned for many many years.
    In fact it was the sportsman who felt they were cruel and pushed
    for their banning. 
    
    Walt

<    Leg hold traps with teeth have been banned for many many years.
<    In fact it was the sportsman who felt they were cruel and pushed
<    for their banning. 

   Not sure, but I believe things like this vary from state to state so what
has been banned for years in the PRM may still be legal in other jurisdictions.

Al

    re.41
    
    very good note, esp. the part about where we , meaning ALL groups,
    must/should become allies if we are to ever effect any legislation...
    
    and although TOOTHED leg hold traps may have been banned in the 
    MAJORITY of states, leg hold traps themselves are still around in many,
    although recently banned in COLO. 
    
    deadhead
    
    

    
    To the best of my knowledge all toothed traps have been banned in 
    the US. If anyone knows different please let me know. As a former
    trapper I have met many people who did and still do trap and none
    of them would ever use a toothed trap. Toothed traps do allow for
    legs to be bitten or twisted off due to the severity of the wound.
    Your basic leg hold trap does not allow this in the vast majority
    of the cases. Therfore if you are trapping for money purposes you are
    better off not using the toothed traps as you wont lose the animal.
    
    many people have misconceptions about the leg hold trap as they rely
    soley on information the read/hear in the news and from anti trapping
    organizations. having caught my fingers more than a couple times in leg
    hold traps let me assure you I still have all 10 fingers, never
    suffered a broken bone or anything worse than an abrasion. Traps like
    guns have become a scapegoat and political power trip for rabid anti's
    to grab onto and run with for money, power and an ego trip.
    
    Walt

    I had a conversation last evening with *serious* bass fisherman who on
    at least one occasion has had his tournament disrupted by PETA
    activists throwing rocks into the water near the splashdown of the
    anglers' lures.
    
    Now I know what a rabid anti looks and sounds like. <g>
    
    John H-C

    Just received my PETA ballot and plea for donation yesterday. The
    entire piece focuses only on animal testing for product safety and
    chemical reaction. PETA projects that ....."roughly 10 million animals
    will be subjected to unspeakable cruelty in wasteful consumer product
    tests." PETA is seeking support for H.R. 3171, CONSUMER PROUCTS TESTING
    ACT. PETA says this bill will "promote the right of animals to humane
    treatment". Nowhere is there any detailed description of this bill so it 
    is impossible to know what is really contained in it. You can never
    tell what is hidden in the riders and fine print. 
    
    Most environmental groups I deal with at least describe a piece of 
    legislation they are asking their members to support.
    
    There is one very alarming question - #9:
    "Do you feel that peaceful, yet illegal activities are ever justified
    when their aim is the rescue of suffering animals?"
    __ Usually  __Sometimes  __Not Often  __Never
    This question has a text book built in bias to ensure a positive
    responses and then further contaminates the question with the three out
    of four yes answer options. Do you think this is really an opinion
    survey, or is it encouragement for the locals to cause mayhem wherever
    they perceive an injustice? 
    
    Also of note is an opening AP article written by David Foster claiming
    that animal rights activists have already had a significant impact on
    activities and attitudes. Based on a sample of 1,004 respondents with a
    +/- 3% error factor, a survey attributed to ICR Surevy Research Group
    of Media, Pa, they say that 2/3 of Americas agree with the basic
    tenet that "An animal's right to live free of suffering should be just
    as important as a person's right to live free of suffering.".
    
    The article goes on to claim that declines in the consumption of red
    meat and increase in restaurants offering vegetarian dishes is 
    more proof that Americans are changing their attitudes concerning
    animal rights. This kind of analysis always gets my ire up. Many people 
    are off red meat for health reasons, not because of some protective 
    feeling for the average cow. My red meat consumption has gone to near 
    zero due to a bad day at the beach last year when I went down with a 
    clogged artery. However, chickens and fishes are dying in far greater 
    numbers than before to keep me fed. I hope I'm not in that restaurant 
    statistic because it is bogus. 
    
    So, on the surface, PETA seems to have and pursue a noble goal - but,
    there are some hints of things and some things unsaid which leave me
    more than a little distrustful of where PETA is really heading, or
    where they will go next after they have animal testing under control.
    
    I do not expect a group like this will ever say - hey, our job is done
    - let's disband.
     
    little    
    

    
    Surveys are great, they can be and sometimes are quite slanted in
    thier questioning. Which leads to the old saying, "There are 3
    kinds of lie's. Lie's, damned lie's and statstics".
    
    Walt