“My bad, Hillary - you're right. Prop 117 usurped the Department of Fish & Game's science-based authority in the matter without amending our constitution. Remind me again, does HSUS support science-based decision-making by state wildlife agencies or not?
And what about my other points about HSUS labeling everything it doesn't like "trophy hunting" without offering facts to back up the use of the term, and HSUS's true motive in opposing the Arizona amendment?”
A constitutional amendment is good when you propose it (e.g., to ban mountain lion hunting in California), but bad when hunters propose it?
And you defend wildlife experts' decision-making rights when they're threatened by a pro-hunting constitutional amendment, but oppose them when their expert opinion would, say, expand bear hunting in California?
That's rich. Perhaps you should cut the hooey and just say what you mean: You'd like to reserve the right to try to ban various types of hunting in the future, and this could interfere with your plans.
Speaking of cutting the hooey: I call B.S. on HSUS labeling all hunters and all forms of hunting as trophy hunting whenever it's something you oppose. If you're going to trot out that term, I dare you to back it up, like, you know, with facts. I know your pal here in Cali couldn't do it on the bear debate this year. Can you do it in this one?”
aligatorhardt on Sep 16, 2010 at 10:34:28
“In a democracy people have the right to determine whether to accept or deny any proposal. To put additional restrictions on any subject is anti-democratic. If a proposal has merit, it will pass.”
“Those videos sound truly horrifying, so why wait for Congress to pass the new law? If those acts are already illegal, shouldn't law enforcement be trying to track down the producers of the videos RIGHT NOW?
HSUS, you have an enormous war chest, and you frequently offer rewards for information that leads to arrests in poaching cases. Have you ponied up some cash for rewards that lead to the arrest of these video producers?
And is anyone putting any money into treatment for the people who enjoy such videos? No law in and of itself will correct such pathologies.”
“Huffpo, what was the matter with my first response here? I was continuing the analogy from the comment Hillary was responding to. Pretty lame. Last I heard, "black" is not a pejorative; it is still an acceptable alternative to "African-American."
Oh well, since you didn't see fit to post that, how about you let me restate the question that Hillary4Animals is dodging: Has Mr. Pacelle publicly renounced these statements he made 19-20 years ago? That question has been sitting out there for quite some time unanswered. If you can show me where he has renounced those statements, I promise I won't guffaw every time I hear someone from HSUS say, "Oh, that was 20 years ago!"”
“Dapperd72, your knowledge of human biology has some holes in it. We're omnivores. Have been for a long time, as have many of our cousins in the primate family.
I reject your contention that the only reason to hunt is to fend off starvation. What, it's better to delegate the killing to a third party, and to relegate the meat animal to a slave for its entire short life? No thanks, I'll take wild game over farmed animals any day.
More power to you if you want to be a vegetarian or vegan, but please don't foist your personal choices on the rest of us. Personally, I think any movement that takes us further away from nature is a mistake. Nature is neither right nor wrong; it just works. Rejecting nature, though, has its consequences.”
“Nice line, Hillary, and well-vetted, I'm sure. But true? No.
Do we share concerns about hunters using doves for target practice and not food? No. Because that's not true. Everyone I know who hunts doves loves eating them.
Do we share concerns about people hunting bears just for trophies? No. Because everyone I know who hunts bears eats them.
Do we share concerns about high-fence ranches? No, because I know that the stereotypes you present to the public are not the norm.
Do exceptions exist? Obviously, and HSUS has mastered the use of the grain of truth to spread the plague of deception - you folks are as slick as the best campaign ad producers. But hunters who know better aren't buying it.
Asking us to embrace your cause and overlook your tactics is like asking African Americans to ligthen up about the propaganda used in the last century to promote continued institutional segregation. We're not buying it. You get away with it because the majority of Americans are far removed from the notion of where meat comes from, so they can't see through the stereotypes. But that doesn't make your propaganda right or true.”
Hillary4Animals on May 25, 2010 at 16:39:02
“NorCalCazadora - You're overstating the issue. We're not asking hunters to "embrace our cause" in the broader sense; we're asking for recognition that on some issues, hunters and animal advocates can work together toward a common good (i.e. less poaching or fewer young animals being removed from their natural environment).”
“I agree that poaching is a serious problem that merits our attention in the hunting community.
But to say that hunting organizations do little to fight poaching or protect newborn wildlife is ridiculous. Every hunting organization I belong to - and there are many - promotes ethical, lawful hunting. And we do far more to protect newborn wildlife than HSUS will EVER do, because we invest most of our money in habitat so that wild animals will have a place to live and thrive.
It is also ridiculous to say that HSUS opposes "only the most inhumane forms of hunting." You oppose forms of hunting that don't fare well in the polls, such as dove or bear hunting, which provide meat just as valid and edible as pheasant and deer hunting. And you fight these forms of hunting with unfounded and insulting stereotypes.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the current debate in Wisconsin, it is with good reason that hunters distrust and dislike the HSUS. You slander us at every opportunity. And while it may be unrealistic to ask state agencies to turn down “free money,” it's really no wonder that hunters chafe at the notion that the agencies WE fund are partnering with YOU.”