are there any people out there that are animal lovers AND gun lovers?

Since when did bears become inedible?
People shoot coyotes because they are a problem animal... Same reason that we shoot ground hogs and crows.

Nematocyst is right, they are the Animal Liberation Front.
I don't know if discussing them here is Ok, since the goverment does consider them a terrorist organisation.
They carry out various actions like rescuing animals from cruel conditions at farms, fur factories and testing labs, also causing havoc in those places to create financial loss for the companies. the animals are then either released back into the wild, or placed in proper care, depending where they should be. Those who carry this out make sure that noone is harmed in the process, including the people that work at the target area, the purpose is to try to save lives. Theres no real organization or leader in the ALF which is why the government is having such a hard time catching them.
the closest thing to a central organization there is the ALF Press Office, but they simply report and cover the actions, they dont organize or plan anything.

I love my guns and pets,but still go hunting when the season rolls around.

What a ridiculous question. As if they are not compatible? I would think that even stereotypical impressions of "outdoorsmen" include their beloved dogs.

Forgive me for I mean no offense but what were you thinking to post this?

I think it was a legitimate post in that it has eroded some of the "go to the woods, guns blazing" stereotype that the antis usually put out there.

Sadly, often times those who are pro 2A are the first to call hunters "Fudds".

Personally, I've actually learned things in this thread.

OK, so be it, I stand down. In a thin skinned mood I just wondered why the need to question. As if people hunted to eradicate the world of those hated animals?

Nematocyst is right, they are the Animal Liberation Front.
I don't know if discussing them here is Ok, since the goverment does consider them a terrorist organisation.
They carry out various actions like rescuing animals from cruel conditions at farms, fur factories and testing labs, also causing havoc in those places to create financial loss for the companies. the animals are then either released back into the wild, or placed in proper care, depending where they should be. Those who carry this out make sure that noone is harmed in the process, including the people that work at the target area, the purpose is to try to save lives. Theres no real organization or leader in the ALF which is why the government is having such a hard time catching them.
the closest thing to a central organization there is the ALF Press Office, but they simply report and cover the actions, they dont organize or plan anything.

Click to expand...

They do indeed harm people. Some recent bombings and arsons attest to that fact. And most animals released from fur farms/etc. will die in the wild as they aren't able to survive on their own, and, cause havoc on the environment in the meantime. They are a terrorist group and they should be treated as such, namely, tried and imprisoned or executed (if they harm a person).

They do indeed harm people. Some recent bombings and arsons attest to that fact. And most animals released from fur farms/etc. will die in the wild as they aren't able to survive on their own, and, cause havoc on the environment in the meantime. They are a terrorist group and they should be treated as such, namely, tried and imprisoned or executed (if they harm a person).

Click to expand...

Well first, as they say. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so I will not bother arguing about that.
Second, The ALF is not so much an organization or group but an idea. As with all ideas, some follow it and all it's rules strictly, while others choose to make exceptions. Generally those who end up causing harm to others are considered as part of the ARM (Animal Rights Militia) and not the ALF. However those are the problems with a leaderless movement. There is no real way to prove who can be blamed for what, people can choose names and banners at will.
Thirdly: Most of the animals are not returned to the wild, unless they came from there (like some animals in fur farms) and would thus be able to take care of themselves. Most are either given to shelters or other places for treatment and then are found homes for.

Personally I applaud their actions as long as no-one is hurt.......as much as I believe some of the researchers deserve it.

Well first, as they say. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, so I will not bother arguing about that.
Second, The ALF is not so much an organization or group but an idea. As with all ideas, some follow it and all it's rules strictly, while others choose to make exceptions. Generally those who end up causing harm to others are considered as part of the ARM (Animal Rights Militia) and not the ALF. However those are the problems with a leaderless movement. There is no real way to prove who can be blamed for what, people can choose names and banners at will.
Thirdly: Most of the animals are not returned to the wild, unless they came from there (like some animals in fur farms) and would thus be able to take care of themselves. Most are either given to shelters or other places for treatment and then are found homes for.

Personally I applaud their actions as long as no-one is hurt.......as much as I believe some of the researchers deserve it.---Boris

Click to expand...

This thread has pursued precisely the course I expected.

It operates within the context of several fallacies.

FALLACY THE FIRST:

The original post asks a question in the manner of a POLL; but it is not a poll of REASONS. It is a poll of private SENTIMENTS.

However, the issue is not a "private" issue. It is a public issue and a matter of law, whether a hunter makes "good use" of the meat from the animal he shoots.

By conducting a seemingly benign inquiry in the nature of a personal poll, the hunters in the group who eat edible game are invited to disenfranhise those who do not eat what they hunt, such as Prairie Dogs, Coyotes, as well as "Trophy" game. That's the Divide & Conquer tactic.

FALLACY THE SECOND:

The second fallacy proceeds directly from the first, because as the topic is a polling of personal sentiments, it is not a rational process of identifying the applicable laws.

The fact that it is not a rational proposition to begin with, but merely a sentimental and personal poll, shares a striking commonality with Gun Control advocacies such as we see in the implementation of "GUN FREE ZONES" where self defense is outlawed. Such Gun Control advocacies are not rational either. They dispense with reason and fact, and simply bar Americans from their civil rights.

That is precisely the problem today with getting Americans and their elected officials to recognize that the
Second Amendment already guarantees the right to keep and bear. Our difficulty, is precisely the public "sentiment" which goes against the proposition for civil rights, and the disregard of rational thinking.

THE THIRD FALLACY:

The Third Fallacy also derives from the first two, in that having elevated sentiment and disregarded rational foundations of dialogue, animal rights activism makes it possible to present a HALF-TRUTH which looks benign on the surface. After all, what could be more innocent that simply saying:

"I-Could-Never-Do-That."

If only mankind were so innocent, and human dialogue were more rational and gentlemanly.

I'm just not too surprised to see animal rights advocacy and its associated propositions for violence, violation of laws of property, and violations of privacy and ownership.

Animal rights activism never desires clarity in reason. It always opts for frothy sentiment and emotionality. Take away that non-rational basis, and such activism collapses like the ethical House-of-Cards it is.

In my opinion, it is a very smart tactic for those who advocate animal rights to co-opt a firearms forum. Its a kind of ideological piracy. However, I don't like to see it happen. The problem is a kind of BAIT-AND-SWITCH, in which personal ETHICS and mass-minded thinking are offered up as a replacement for the Rule-of-Law.

My personal "feeling" (let alone my reasoning) is that if a man obeys the law, he deserves our wholehearted support, and absolutely nothing less. If a man obeys game laws, I'm for that man, because he is a law-abiding citizen. It really doesn't matter how distant third parties "feel" about it.

The law does not require me to love my gun. The law does not require me to love the Prairie Dog. The law requires that we obey the law. So it doesn't matter if I hate "Bambi" or "Flower" or love them to distraction. My responsibility is to obey that law. I also respect those who obey the law, and I will not disrespect any hunter who obeys the law, for that is precisely the only requirement he or she need fulfill, this side of the Pearly Gates.




/

Personally I applaud their actions as long as no-one is hurt.......as much as I believe some of the researchers deserve it.

Click to expand...

Its pretty disgusting to be honest, in 100 years those people would more then likely be put on trial.

I am not for disobedience or destruction but, some things are just too f#cked up to let continue to happen.

some things are just too f#cked up to let continue to happen

Click to expand...

What things are you speaking of?
Well said BruceRDucer.

R

Its pretty disgusting to be honest, in 100 years those people would more then likely be put on trial.

I am not for disobedience or destruction but, some things are just too f#cked up to let continue to happen.

Click to expand...

Yes I am a bit confused as to which people you are talking about.

FALLACY THE FIRST:

The original post asks a question in the manner of a POLL; but it is not a poll of REASONS. It is a poll of private SENTIMENTS.

However, the issue is not a "private" issue. It is a public issue and a matter of law, whether a hunter makes "good use" of the meat from the animal he shoots.

By conducting a seemingly benign inquiry in the nature of a personal poll, the hunters in the group who eat edible game are invited to disenfranhise those who do not eat what they hunt, such as Prairie Dogs, Coyotes, as well as "Trophy" game. That's the Divide & Conquer tactic.

Click to expand...

I don't see what this poll had to do with the law or with what people do with their kill after the hunt. It simply asks who here is an animal lover as well as a gun lover.
I won't comment on what kind of pall this was supposed to be since I am not the one that made it. i simply added my opinion and thoughts to it. That is I believe the purpose of this whole forum, is to share my opinions.

THE THIRD FALLACY:

The Third Fallacy also derives from the first two, in that having elevated sentiment and disregarded rational foundations of dialogue, animal rights activism makes it possible to present a HALF-TRUTH which looks benign on the surface. After all, what could be more innocent that simply saying:

"I-Could-Never-Do-That."

If only mankind were so innocent, and human dialogue were more rational and gentlemanly.

I'm just not too surprised to see animal rights advocacy and its associated propositions for violence, violation of laws of property, and violations of privacy and ownership.

Animal rights activism never desires clarity in reason. It always opts for frothy sentiment and emotionality. Take away that non-rational basis, and such activism collapses like the ethical House-of-Cards it is.

In my opinion, it is a very smart tactic for those who advocate animal rights to co-opt a firearms forum. Its a kind of ideological piracy. However, I don't like to see it happen. The problem is a kind of BAIT-AND-SWITCH, in which personal ETHICS and mass-minded thinking are offered up as a replacement for the Rule-of-Law.

My personal "feeling" (let alone my reasoning) is that if a man obeys the law, he deserves our wholehearted support, and absolutely nothing less. If a man obeys game laws, I'm for that man, because he is a law-abiding citizen. It really doesn't matter how distant third parties "feel" about it.

The law does not require me to love my gun. The law does not require me to love the Prairie Dog. The law requires that we obey the law. So it doesn't matter if I hate "Bambi" or "Flower" or love them to distraction. My responsibility is to obey that law. I also respect those who obey the law, and I will not disrespect any hunter who obeys the law, for that is precisely the only requirement he or she need fulfill, this side of the Pearly Gates.

Click to expand...

Firstly, as I stated, the idea of the ALF (I won't generalize on the whole animal-rights movement since I do not know the details on all the groups in it) does not propose violence. But just like with firearm owners or any other group of people, some follow the idea and it's rules and some make exceptions. That is not to say that all animal rights activists condone violence.
The animal rights movement has plenty of reason to support it. Animals that are mistreated for experiments that are often just not worth it need to be helped. It's not a matter of sentiment or emotion, but just common sense that it is wrong. Not trying to put words in your mouth, but with your reasoning, most any other civil rights movement is nothing but sentimental nonsense because it went against the laws in place at the time.
Also your views on the subject of following the law being a person's primary responsibility seem to contradict what you said in your second fallacy.
You know that alot of laws (not just gun related ones) are based on "feelings" and irrational beliefs, and yet you believe in following them unconditionally.
I am not saying that laws should all be ignored at every opportunity, but that they do not always ensure what is best for those governed by them.
If the law stated that you had to turn over your guns to the government, would you still respect the man coming to take them simply because he is just following the law? This is a serious question, not trying to invoke some sort of guilt on you. What you do with your guns is up to you.
I would comply simply because I wouldn't have much of a choice, and would do whatever i can to arm myself again once he leaves.
The second amendment would never exist if people always followed the law and what it states.
And last, I'm not here really advocating animal rights, but simply stating my opinion on it and why I hold that opinion. If you see, I have never mentioned it here before other than now. And I don't see how it's such a great tactic, seeing as how my opinion is really opposed here.

Wow, I don't usually write so much even when I have to

Thirdly: Most of the animals are not returned to the wild, unless they came from there (like some animals in fur farms) and would thus be able to take care of themselves. Most are either given to shelters or other places for treatment and then are found homes for.

Click to expand...

The animals in fur farms didn't come from the wild. They're raised from birth like any other livestock. For example, the minks raised for their fur are much different than the wild mink, in many ways. And all of these animals, being born and raised as livestock, do not have the skills and ability to survive on their own. The only furbearers from the wild you will find are those trapped by trappers or, hunted by hunters, and they won't be alive when you see them. It is in fact illegal in my homestate (VT) to relocate wild animals alive (because it spreads disease).

Most of the attacks I've read about and seen footage of, were definately the animals being let loose. Thousands of chickens at a time, pigs, etc. Very bad for the environment and the animals' well being. PETA kills most of the animals it receives.

Personally I applaud their actions as long as no-one is hurt.......as much as I believe some of the researchers deserve it.

Click to expand...

Legally I could shoot these terrorists if they attacked myself and my property, and I would. As a gun enthusiast you should be aware of this fact already (in many states anyways). Thieves and terrorists belong in prison or death row, respectively.

Not trying to put words in your mouth, but with your reasoning, most any other civil rights movement is nothing but sentimental nonsense because it went against the laws in place at the time.

Click to expand...

This isn't a civil rights movement. These are animals not people. While I desire animals be treated humanely by people they don't have the rights people have. Animals and people are not equals, and if the animal rights argument was accepted, that they were equals and we have equal rights, it would be a defense of the right to hunt and use them, as that is what animals do to each other in the wild. It is perfectly acceptable for us to use animals for food and clothing. We should make efforts to treat them humanely but to make use of animals is not a bad thing. We were meant to.

And BTW, use of animals (often simply rats) in medical research has saved countless lives, human and animal, through making breakthroughs in finding treatments and weeding out bad treatments before being put to widespread use. In determining health effects of chemicals used in agriculture and other things, making us aware of problems, so we can limit the environmental and health damage caused. And more.

I am a big gun lover. I am also a big animal lover, especially dogs. However, I would have no problem hunting coyote, or wolves.

I guess I see hunting as part ofbeing a nature lover, of understanding the cycle of life and death. I realize whatever animal I kill would ultimately have met that same fate anyways, as would I.

I am reminded of a recent hunting question on Yahoo Answers about getting rid of problem cougar. I figured it would be someone legitemately concerned about livestock or overreacting to a percieved threat to livestock.

Turns out the person was upset because the cougar was eating fawns. To me, that is one kind of 'oh I luv the little cutzy animal-wanimal they are so huggable!' animal lover, and the NATURE lover is the one that says 'what? Cougars got to eat too, besides, it is good for the deer population!'

I obviously love guns (otherwise why would I be here?) and I also love animals. I have dogs but no cats (allergic to them) and I like most other animals as well. I probably wouldn't shoot a bear or moose but dear and antelope are no problem. I shoot prarie dogs all the time for sport and being shot is a much better fate then what would naturally happen. They get hungry when the food supply starts going down and eat the weaker ones. They never go to waste, most of the time their bodies will be gone within an hour or two of shooting them. I have not gone coyote hunting but I might this fall. It puts money in my pockets and in my grandparents since it keeps their sheep alive. Hunting for sport is really not inhumane since they will be eaten one way or another and usually, there is more animals in any given species than nature can support.

I was actually a vegetarian for some time, not because I'm necessarily against eating meat, I love it. I'm against the kind of treatment that most livestock and poultry have to go through, even cows and chickens used for milk and eggs.
Just look at some of the undercover videos taken by members of the ALF.

Click to expand...

Remember, if you look hard enough you can find a bad anything. There are nurses and doctors who see themselves as 'angels of death' and kill, yet that is far from the norm. There are clergy who sexually abuse, but that is far from the norm. There are teachers who sell drugs to students but that is far from the norm.

I would hope seeing a video of any of those activities would not lead you to believe that ALL doctors and nurses kill for the power rush, that ALL clergy members sexually abuse children and ALL teachers sell drugs to students.

I grew up in a rural area and can attest that what you see on such videos are isolated incidents, or all the facts are not being presented. How about this though, rather than being swayed by a video that is cherry-picked for it's shock value and then further edited, try visiting a local farm, see for yourself.

Thirdly: Most of the animals are not returned to the wild, unless they came from there (like some animals in fur farms) and would thus be able to take care of themselves. Most are either given to shelters or other places for treatment and then are found homes for.

Click to expand...

Blatantly false. In most cases lab rats and rabbits are turned loose to starve, same with mink, chickens, and other critters when farms are hit. PETA has been caught killing pets after telling people they were providing a no-kill shelter, and in fact of killing abandoned pets at a rate much higher than county funded shelters. PETA was also busted for dumping the animal carcasses in local dumpsters rather than properly disposing of what would otherwise be a nasty disease vector.

Here at the U of MN a few years back a group burned down a few construction trailers on a new building sight and released a handful of lab animals but mostly just trashed things, but here's the kicker. They trashed an alzheimer's research lab, which was using 'artificial tissue' for it's research in the attempts of keeping animal tests to an absolute minimum, and all of those tests going on in petri dishes were destroyed.

I read recently that Gov Palin's father had a bumper sticker on the back of his pick-up reading:

"Vegetarian" is an old Indian word for lousy Hunter.

Nuff said.

Go figure.

Fred

Blatantly false. In most cases lab rats and rabbits are turned loose to starve, same with mink, chickens, and other critters when farms are hit. PETA has been caught killing pets after telling people they were providing a no-kill shelter, and in fact of killing abandoned pets at a rate much higher than county funded shelters. PETA was also busted for dumping the animal carcasses in local dumpsters rather than properly disposing of what would otherwise be a nasty disease vector.

Click to expand...

ALF and PETA are two separate groups, although on occasion might help each other in a common cause, most of the activists who aren't part of PETA really don't like them simply because they don't do anything to help other than give out pamphlets and stickers, and collect fees to buy more pamphlets and stickers.

Here at the U of MN a few years back a group burned down a few construction trailers on a new building sight and released a handful of lab animals but mostly just trashed things, but here's the kicker. They trashed an alzheimer's research lab, which was using 'artificial tissue' for it's research in the attempts of keeping animal tests to an absolute minimum, and all of those tests going on in petri dishes were destroyed.

Click to expand...

Of course there will be some who go and destroy a lab just for the sake of destroying one without doing any research as to what they are destroying. Just like those hunters mentioned here who get drunk, and go to the woods to shoot stuff just for the sake of killing it, and not even doing that properly.

Some of those videos are pretty old and things have gotten for the better in alot of these places, not only because the attacks cost the companies money, but they bring bad publicity which costs even more money. Such as a research company called Huntington Life Sciences who lost a lot of business over the years from client companies who either don't want to be associated with animal testing, or attacked themselves for supporting it. They apparently have even been taken off the stock exchange.
There are some instances where animal testing is beneficial as long as it's done right, but in alot it's really just useless.
Cosmetics testing is really just pointless, they can use other alternatives, animals just seem to be the cheapest and most hassle-free. Fur and leather production is the same. You can get clothing from other non-animal materials which is just better in pretty much every way. Or if you need leather, then fake leather, looks just as real, is stronger, and can be made for you in pretty much any way you want.

Another vegetarian here (aah! they're starting to come out of the woodwork!). I had been thinking about it for a time, and then I encountered a bloody cow head for barbacoa. After getting over my squeamishness, I decided "I don't have to eat meat." So I stopped.

While I avoid meat, leather, etc. myself, I actually wish there were more hunters.

Too many today think of meat as something that comes in shrink wrap at the store or comes down the chute at McDonald's. Hunters understand better than anyone where meat comes from as they pursued the animal in its natural environment. Plus they are our best conservationists.

Maybe every meat eater ought to behead and pluck a chicken or something once to have a better appreciation of the animal's sacrifice. In the end, though, everyone's diet is a personal choice.

I am an animal lover.A human can make a choice,animals really can not.My world revolves around my dog.Hey,he is my son.And I will protect him as such.I also have cats and I would do the same for them.That being said,I keep large pythons.All of them will take thawed food but one.(the small one @9ft)I either have to put the prey animal in a pillowcase and whack it against a table or let the snake do the work.The reason I whack it is because I do not want my snake to suffer a bite.(Large rats are MEAN).It kills me to do this.I do not hunt.Could I?Yes..if it came down to survival.The supermarket gives me plenty of fresh meat...LOL!

Too many today think of meat as something that comes in shrink wrap at the store or comes down the chute at McDonald's. Hunters understand better than anyone where meat comes from as they pursued the animal in its natural environment. Plus they are our best conservationists.

Maybe every meat eater ought to behead and pluck a chicken or something once to have a better appreciation of the animal's sacrifice. In the end, though, everyone's diet is a personal choice.

Click to expand...

Great posts Saspic.

I'm a hunter. I've killed livestock on a farm and processed them.
I can tell you that I enjoy meat as a food, but I don't enjoy killing animals.
What I enjoy is being a part of the ecosystem.

I've mostly moved to eating produce these days, and really am moving toward only eating wild game. I'm very much opposed to the idea of farming livestock that spend their whole life with their head in a feed chute being pumped full of steroids and antibiotics. Hunting has taught me a level of awe and respect for nature and animals that I would not otherwise have.
In fact, I'm going Bowhunting tomorrow.

Saspic is dead on. I saw an episode of the Ted Nugent show where they had to do exactly that. You wouldn't believe how this turned into a giant emotional issue for those who had to kill the chicken.

Modern urban man has so disassociated himself from nature that there is no reverance for animals. When you can buy chicken nuggets in the shape of dinosaurs and cartoon characters, you teach the young that the nugget is made from some material other than a chicken.

Responsible hunters at least look that animal in the eye and go through the whole field dressing process before it ends up on a plate.

Just because you want to hunt something for sport doesn't mean you're not an "animal lover", or are without a sensitive soul/are a cruel person. Sometimes, I think people take "animal lover" to religious levels - ie, like it's some sort of calling for humans to not eat (or more likely harm) another living creature. Or, often, a certain subset of wild creatures - for instance, mice and mosquitoes are usually exempt from protection by this lot.

Personally, I've got little interest in hunting large predatory animals. If predatory animals were in over-population or there was something said predators could provide me which I could not get elsewhere, that'd be another matter entirely, however.

I don't hunt for the antlers - I hunt for the meat and have yet to take a buck - though getting a large antlered buck would be a very rewarding experience for me, none the same. I feel it's my obligation - as someone who loves the outdoors and wants to do what I can do to preserve it and its inhabitants - to help maintain balance within the ecosystem ( and right now, does are a drastic majority here, locally).

We've got a dog and a cat, both of which are "a part of the family". We've got wild deer and turkeys in our yard, which we all enjoy watching ("loving"?). I also go out and look for animals and animal sign - not just the ones I can shoot, but the whole ecosystem. It takes a lot more time than I spend actually hunting, and I'm sure this is true for most other hunters as well. In my limited experience, I'd put most hunters in the same category as bird watchers, naturalists, and other knowledgeable outdoorsy people.

I enjoy shooting, hunting, and simply scouting for animals and sign. I'd shoot a wolf, trap a coyote, and do a lot of other things like that, though it's not for lack of love for animals. I'd like to go spear hunting for hogs one day, too - but there are none around here to hunt.

Human morality is complex, and to cast it in black and white as "you can't hunt for sport and love animals" is simple minded. The most avid sport hunters I've met have also been the people I'd say are most in love with the outdoors - all aspects of it and its preservation. They've certainly been more internally and externally consistent than your average "save the planet" PETA type.

Fur and leather production is the same. You can get clothing from other non-animal materials which is just better in pretty much every way. Or if you need leather, then fake leather, looks just as real, is stronger, and can be made for you in pretty much any way you want.

Click to expand...

Fur and leather come from renewable resources. Leather typically a waste product from butchering cows/etc. Fur comes from furbearers, wild or domestically raised. Wild furbearers would overpopulate if not managed, and trapping and hunting them keeps their population in check. You'd rather see them overpopulate, then starve or die of diseases, huh? Or, overpopulate, and people begin to think of these animals as nuissances and not something to be valued. Take MA for example, where trapping has been severely restricted by outlawing the most effective traps. It's caused severe overpopulation problems and human conflicts (notably beavers flooding property) leading more and more people to see these animals as nuissances that they want eliminated. Farm/ranch raised furbearers allow demand to be satisfied without over-hunting or trapping the wild furebearers.

The synthetic leathers and furs come from petroleum (non-renewable, frequently non-biodegradable, all around bad for the environment) and if plant based such as cotton, flax, hemp, etc., habitat is destroyed to raise those crops, killing far more animals than would be hunted or trapped each year. You may want to consider the full consequences of your decisions and not just the surface.

One of the stories my Uncle used to tell was of when a woman from PETA came to the farm when he was loading hogs and using a shock prod to move them. When she pointed out to him that use was cruel and unnecessary he told her to show him the proper method. Now, as you may or may not know, a hog is as stubborn and willful as a three year old. After twenty minutes with a particularly aggravating animal the PETA woman lost her temper and picked up a shovel with the intention of hitting the animal. My Uncle stopped her and made her leave.

He also wrote PETA and asked them if they were to continue to send people that would abuse his animals he would sue them over the attempted abuse. To my knowledge he received no reply.

Selena