Antifreeze Producer Promotes Anti-Hunting Gro

[Critr Gitr]

View Here
or
here:

As winter approaches and people begin to prepare their vehicles for the cold weather, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance wants to alert sportsmen that getting a good deal on PEAK and SIERRA brands of antifreeze and deicer could jeopardize America’s hunting heritage.

A rebate offered with the purchase of assorted PEAK Performance Products will credit buyers $1 to $2 per gallon of product. A section on the rebate form allows consumers to donate their rebate to the American Humane Association (AHA).

The AHA opposes all hunting and trapping. This year, it demonstrated its opposition to outdoor sports by supporting federal legislation, HR 1472, to ban bear hunting over bait. It called the practice “unsporting, unethical, and barbaric.” It also supports Congressional legislation, HB 1800, to ban trapping.

From U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance web page

[foxer]

Same thing with Petsmart. Shop at Petco instead

[BrionLutz]

Git'r.

This probably belongs in the Hunting section.

One note, you misstate the facts below. AHA doesn't oppose "all hunting". AHA opposition you note is to the sleazy practice of using dogs and bait in Utah to "hunt" black bears as they come out of hibernation in the winter.

No real hunter would do that.

As for traps, do any sportsmen use traps?

Brion

[roadsend]

"As for traps, do any sportsmen use traps?"

Our local trappers are almost all hunters and fishermen. I personally know at least two fishery techs and a PhD biologist who trap.

[Critr Gitr]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:

One note, you misstate the facts below. AHA doesn't oppose "all hunting". AHA opposition you note is to the sleazy practice of using dogs and bait in Utah to "hunt" black bears as they come out of hibernation in the winter.

No real hunter would do that.

As for traps, do any sportsmen use traps?

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You really should read the entire post. What I posted is From U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance web page - verbatim. I misstate nothing.
If you got a beef with their statement --- take it up with them.

You could be right though ... they did forget to include other misguided groups like "Save Larry the Lobster", HSUS, PETA, and others.

As for the bear baiting thing ... do you still have the "Support Measure 18" bumper sticker on your VW microbus ?

[ 10-23-2003, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Crit'r Git'r ]

[Norm]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Git'r.

This probably belongs in the Hunting section.

One note, you misstate the facts below. AHA doesn't oppose "all hunting". AHA opposition you note is to the sleazy practice of using dogs and bait in Utah to "hunt" black bears as they come out of hibernation in the winter.

No real hunter would do that.

As for traps, do any sportsmen use traps?

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That sounds like a quote from the PETA website :shocked: . Califonia's due south of here dude.

Thanks for the heads up Critr and foxer. These guys want to stop all fishing and hunting, they are just chipping away at it piece by piece.

[ 10-23-2003, 06:55 PM: Message edited by: Norm ]

[olyolson]

Talk about hipocritical! AHA and antifreeze manufacturers joining forces.My black lab died from drinking antifreeze left out at my neighbors house.What a joke.

[skein]

Gee, what a condescending post. Maybe because of the holier-than-thou attitude expressed, we should move this whole thing to The Angler's Chapel

No real hunter would do that.

As for traps, do any sportsmen use traps?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">This post and its carefully worded message is only designed to antagonize and aggravate both readers and posters. Don't continue to try to be clever. It's not working.

Skein

[BrionLutz]

olyolson,

Talk about hipocritical! AHA and antifreeze manufacturers joining forces.My black lab died from drinking antifreeze left out at my neighbors house.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The reason the chemical companies give money to AHA is that the Humane Society is the organization that runs the public service ads and programs telling folks to be careful with auto anti-freeze because it can kill dogs and cats.

I guess you folks all oppose Humane Society running those ads and having even more folks lose their pets.

Brion

[Flatfish]

.

[ 10-23-2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Flatfish ]

Lutz,
Trapping is the commercial harvest of a wonderful renuable resource. Nothing beats REAL FUR!!!

What do you wear? Cotton, rayon and crude oil*?
*Nylon is manufactured out of crude.

as they come out of hibernation in the winter.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica"> Again you prove you're clueless. Bears come out of hibernation in the spring I haven't laughed so hard in years!

Anti freeze works great on problem bears too :shocked: Don't ask me how I know this though.

[ 10-23-2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[BrionLutz]

Keta,

Trapping is the commercial harvest of a wonderful renuable resource.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Actually commercial fur is "farmed" not trapped.

On bears, hibernation and winter, typo on my part but you still got it wrong, bears do come out as early as March which is still winter (March 21st this year). You just can't catch a break on the facts can you &lt;grin&gt;.

Never heard of trapping refered to as a "sport", mostly a utility thing, Nutria for example.

Brion

I guess we are splitting hairs here. They come out of hibernation when the weather is right not by a calendar.

Fur ranching is commercial and so is fur trapping. It is done for $ so it is commercial.

You don't know what a "fact" is, ie.
130,000-132,000= -2000. Still laughing about this "fact" that you invented. How do you come up with a negitive return for chinook salmon?



[ 10-23-2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Keta ]

[Lured In]

Folks these types of issues seem to becoming more and more prevalent(sp).

I recently heard that Disney gave PETA the marketing rights to the "Finding Nemo" characters to promote "Fish are Friends, Not Food" campaign.

As sportsman (hunting, fishing and trapping, Brion) we need to be united on these issues and not be divisive.

Our recreational lifestyles are continually under attack from those that strongly oppose all types of fish and game harvest. We have a common opponent and should not be encouraging the downfall of one sport we don't participate in(perhaps hunting or trapping), as the same group will likely be after fishing next. (if not already.)

Focus on the issues folks and look farther than your nose. All fishing, hunting and trapping are on these organizations' agenda for destruction.

Focus on the issues folks and look farther than your nose. All fishing, hunting and trapping are on these organizations' agenda for destruction.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Buck50]

Lured In....Right On!

[Critr Gitr]

This is an aside to the main thrust of this thread..

If the antis can't litigate or legislate their causes, they'll take it to the voting booth.

While cherishing our right to vote, placing things like bear and cougar management on the ballot seems to be an inappropriate use of that right. In 1994, Oregonians (mainly Eugene & Portland) decided that they know how to better manage this particular resource than all the biologists working for ODFW.

Why should they stop there - muzzleloading, bowhunting, waterfowling? There have been efforts by these groups to single out and legislatively attack all of these methods and more.

Will it come down to outlawing fishing with worms ? Or force deer and elk hunters to use sharp spoons ?

Their tactic is to continue to chip away at the edges in an effort to recruit the non hunting, non fishing, non trapping public to their way of thinking.

How does sound scientific wildlife management stand a chance against an emotional uneducated public majority ?

I can still vote with the almighty $$$ - and companies that support any cause I disagree with won't get my business.


There are 3 types of people:
those that make things happen
those that watch things happen
and
those that wonder what happened..............

[Norm]

When hunting bear and cougar was banned in Oregon, there was lot's of $$ pumped into the anti-hunting campaign from out of state. This included $$ from the Humane Society and PETA. The sportsman of this state were out gunned and under funded. This funding came from groups who think they should dictate how we live and manage our wildlife in this great state. These groups will not stop until we are all living on soybeans and wearing fig leaves. I for one will not support any company who funds organizations that try and dictate my lifestyle. If they want to live on granola and wear organically produced clothes that's their choice, but they shouldn't force me to do the same.

[BrionLutz]

Lured In

As sportsman (hunting, fishing and trapping, Brion) we need to be united on these issues and not be divisive.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Couldn't agree more but I think this thread demonstrates the problem not the solution.

Sportsmen go off on tangents and end up shooting themselves in the foot (excuse the pun) on side issues vs. staying focused on the big picture. In this case, folks are willing to see their dogs and other pets die of anti-freeze poisoning rather than help pay for the public service ads to prevent it. All because the public awareness campaign on anti-freeze and pets is run by an organization who does some other stuff they don't like.

There's a great editorial on Field and Stream on this exact issue. Editorial was in October 2003 Issue. It's not online anymore, you have to get the old issue. The editorial also refers and recommends an article they ran in that iusse on "Drilling in the Wild".

"In 'Drilling in the Wild" Kerasote examines the current administrations falure to protect fishing and hunting on our public land".

He ain't refering to PETA or the Humane Society but to a person the Editor of Fields & Stream calls "a certain Texan".

Basically, sportsmen have a blind spot (mainly on their right side) that has them supporting politicians and groups that work against the best interests of sportsmen.

The group the editorial references is The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Olyolson,

We as the public should not have to pay for ads warning of the dangers of antifreeze ingestion. That should be solely the responsibility of the manufacturer to warn the public of the poison they are producing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That would be nice, included in the price of the anti-freeze. I'd certainly support that but that's different issue.

Currently AHA runs the program, part on their own budget, because they think it's the right thing to do. Shame to see folks bust on them for fringe issues and try and defund the program.

On the anti-freeze, I'd as soon see them legislate that it get changed to so it's not poison. Seems like that is doable. No matter how much public education, there'll be a lot of folks who don't get it, don't care, etc.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

bllelek,

Hounds are used for bear and cougar hunting in Idaho as well as Utah and possibly some other states.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The bear baiting thing in Utah and other states is a bit different. They put bait out where the bears hibernate (not limited to spring though) bears come out, go for the bait and they kill'em.

I guess some folks call that "sport". I don't and I'd support getting rid of it as does the AHA and the more progressive sportsman groups. It should have gone the way of headlighting deer a long time ago.

All a bit immaterial to Humane Society public education program about anti-freeze killing pets.

The program is worth doing and everybody, including sportsmen, especially sportsmen with dogs, should support it. But, it gets back to the Field and Stream editorial on hunters and fishermen being their own worst enemies, or in this case, their dogs worst enemy.

Brion

[boater]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
One note, you misstate the facts below. AHA doesn't oppose "all hunting". AHA opposition you note is to the sleazy practice of using dogs and bait in Utah to "hunt" black bears as they come out of hibernation in the winter.

No real hunter would do that.

As for traps, do any sportsmen use traps?

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">i copied the note below from the aha website, it`s there stance on hunting.

Hunting

American Humane opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or for simple sport. American Humane believes that sport hunting is a form of exploitation of animals for the entertainment of the hunter and is contrary to the values of compassion and respect for all life that inform American Humane's mission.

American Humane finds that wildlife management often consists of creating habitat that favors "game" species, which creates an overpopulation available for the purposes of sport hunting. American Humane opposes these practices and favors wildlife "management" requiring the least human manipulation, favoring all wildlife in an ecosystem equally. On occasion when all other avenues have been exhausted and there remains a demonstrable necessity to kill some wildlife, it should be performed by responsible officials, and methods utilized must result in instantaneous and humane death.

American Humane considers sport hunting a violation of the inherent integrity of animals and disruptive of the natural balance of the environment through human manipulation, and calls for positive action to be taken to prevent such cruelties.

Caught you at it again Lutz. When will you learn, not everyone is stupid.

[BrionLutz]

Boater,

Eyup...Humane Society is against hunting but you probably need to go back to the beginning this thread for what they are actually doing vs. their philosophy.

This year, it demonstrated its opposition to outdoor sports by supporting federal legislation, HR 1472, to ban bear hunting over bait. It called the practice “unsporting, unethical, and barbaric.”

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">That's what they are actually doing. Not trying to get legislation banning hunting.

Now you may or may not agree with them on that issue or not, but that's no reason to try and defund the program to educate folks about anti-freeze killing pets, including hunting dogs.

That kind of all or nothing attitude is why sportsmen end up supporting politicians and programs that are actually bad for fish, game, hunting and fishing, as the Field and Stream editorial noted.

Brion

[olyolson]

Brion: We as the public should not have to pay for ads warning of the dangers of antifreeze ingestion. That should be solely the responsibility of the manufacturer to warn the public of the poison they are producing. I ask for and receive MSDS sheets on every item that is brought or used on a jobsite. I have to know proper procedures if someone inhales it, if it contacts the skin or eyes, or ingests it. I wonder if any of these people have moles in their yards. What do you do... play Boxcar Willie songs next to their hole until they leave?

[bllelk]

Brion:

Hounds are used for bear and cougar hunting in Idaho as well as Utah and possibly some other states. Most hound hunters are in it only for pursuit and not the kill. I don't know Utahs regs or Idaho's either now, but there is a pursuit only season as well as a take season. It is an interesting sport. I have participated and my Son in Idaho is into it big time. He has been hound hunting several years and hunts 15 to 20 times a year. He's killed one cat and only because it was near a friends ranch. Two weeks ago he let a 400 lb bear go. It goes beyond the killing. Those hound hunters are as much into dogs and breeding as any bird hunter. Shooting a bear or cat out of a tree after it's been run isn't my idea of fun but I don't think it's my place to call it a sleazy practice or to try to force others into my way of thinking. I think it's kind of fun to chase them, throw a few rocks, take a couple pictures and everybody goes home. The dogs and bear are a little smarter.
There are sleazes in every sport but to paint an entire states sportsmen with same brush isn't right.
This thread started about not supporting producers of products that fund regulation of sports that we enjoy. I think we should make sure of our target before we pull the trigger. [img]graemlins/icon_argue.gif[/img]

[roadsend]

"This year, it demonstrated its opposition to outdoor sports by supporting federal legislation, HR 1472, to ban bear hunting over bait. It called the practice “unsporting, unethical, and barbaric.”

That's what they are actually doing. Not trying to get legislation banning hunting."

That's what they are doing this year. What are they doing next year?

This outfit can be expected to incrementally follow it's philosophy from year to year.

It does not deserve our support.

[boater]

[ 10-25-2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: boater ]

[BrionLutz]

boater,

...this isnt a program to educate folks about antifreeze killing pets, its a program to educate folks that peak antifreeze does not kill pets, including hunting dogs. in other words, its advertising.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Nope. Humane Society public service/education on anti-freeze killing pets is run with or without the additional funds by some of the chemical companies.

A couple of the more enlightened companies decided to help out with the funding and a couple of the less enlightened sportsmen groups try to hammer them for it.

The Field and Stream editorial pointed out that sportsmen tend not to support good initiatives like this because they are get distracted and get dragged off target by other issues. If it's good for hunting and fishing, then support it.

The Humane Society program and mfg.s support for it is a good program, good for pets, good for hunting dogs. I'd support it even if the NRA ran it &lt;grin&gt;.

Brion

[boater]

brion, would you care to show me a report that shows where peak antifreeze has killed any dogs or cats ?

[boater]

wow, looks like i asked brion "i have a study for everything" lutz for a study he cant produce &lt;grin&gt; :grin:

[Norm]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:

A couple of the more enlightened companies decided to help out with the funding and a couple of the less enlightened sportsmen groups try to hammer them for it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Were very enlightened, that’s why the hammers out.

The Field and Stream editorial pointed out that sportsmen tend not to support good initiatives like this because they are get distracted and get dragged off target by other issues. If it's good for hunting and fishing, then support it.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">How is supporting a group who's aim is to stop hunting good for hunting and fishing ?

The Humane Society program and mfg.s support for it is a good program, good for pets, good for hunting dogs. I'd support it even if the NRA ran it

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They don't make any guarantees that all the money they collect is going to commercials to prevent pet anti-freeze poisoning. I wonder how much of the money is going to anti-hunting initiatives? Would you just take a used car salemans word thats it "run's just like new", or would you open the hood and take it for a drive? [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

These anti-hunting groups have pretty easy pickings from people who think they are helping dogs, but what they don’t know is they are really funding anti-hunting, anti-fishing, and anti-farming initiatives. Most of these people have never caught or killed a meal they have eaten in their lives, and would starve without the local McDonalds. I used to give to the humane society until they started funding anti hunting campaigns. I love dogs, but I also love to hunt. Unfortunalty the Humane Society can't seperate the two.

Keeping informed is the only way to keep these freaks from forcing their personal agenda’s on us. Our $$ speak loudly when we put them together.

Proud member of PETA, People Eating Tasty Animals. :grin:

[ 10-25-2003, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Norm ]

[Gregor]

it appears they didn't know...but now they do.

company response from another forum

"It has recently come to our attention that the hunting community is upset about one of our company’s products, Sierra antifreeze, which has a sponsorship with the American Humane Association (AHA). Our intention with getting involved with the AHA several years ago, was to bring awareness to families of pets and children about a safer antifreeze, Sierra, due to it’s
less toxic nature vs. conventional ethylene glycol based antifreeze. Every year approximately 100,000 pets/animals die from ingesting conventional antifreeze off of garage floors and driveways. The objective was awareness of a safer solution to this, not to alienate the hunting and outdoorsman community. Unknown to us, the AHA has apparently taken some active stances against certain rights of hunters. Upon hearing this, we have made a decision to sever our sponsorship with the AHA. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and we hope you’ll continue to support Old World Industries products like Sierra antifreeze and other PEAK performance products."

[BrionLutz]

Gregor,

So now Old World Industries, makers of Sierra and Peak anti-freeze, get to sell a product that kills 100,000 pets year but now, thanks to the "enlightened" sportsmen's group, they contribute nothing to preventing the deaths of the animals.

Brion

[Gregor]

no Brion, they contribute alot by producing an alternative to glycol based products. They always will as long as it is good business. It's the AHA's actions against the rights of others that got the support pulled.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
Git'r.

AHA opposition you note is to the sleazy practice of using dogs and bait in Utah to "hunt" black bears as they come out of hibernation in the winter.

No real hunter would do that.

Brion

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion,
Thats an unedcuated cheap shot at hunters.. You obivously don't hunt and have little first hand information on this issue. As usual its proably just your yahoo or google.com theories on wildlife biology..

[Norm]

Originally posted by Gregor:
it appears they didn't know...but now they do.

company response from another forum

"It has recently come to our attention that the hunting community is upset about one of our company’s products, Sierra antifreeze, which has a sponsorship with the American Humane Association (AHA). Our intention with getting involved with the AHA several years ago, was to bring awareness to families of pets and children about a safer antifreeze, Sierra, due to it’s
less toxic nature vs. conventional ethylene glycol based antifreeze. Every year approximately 100,000 pets/animals die from ingesting conventional antifreeze off of garage floors and driveways. The objective was awareness of a safer solution to this, not to alienate the hunting and outdoorsman community. Unknown to us, the AHA has apparently taken some active stances against certain rights of hunters. Upon hearing this, we have made a decision to sever our sponsorship with the AHA. Thank you for bringing this to our attention and we hope you’ll continue to support Old World Industries products like Sierra antifreeze and other PEAK performance products."

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

Now maybe OWI can contribute by directly funding ads instead of funding oraganizations like AHA. It's too bad groups like the AHA can't seem to seperate helping dog's from hunting. I guess that's what you get when radical anti-hunters get control. The internet is powerful tool for getting the truth out.

[BrionLutz]

Norm,

Now maybe OWI can contribute by directly funding ads instead of funding oraganizations like AHA.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">They weren't before so they won't be now. It was the customer's "rebate", a marketing pitch.

It simply means less funding for the public service program to protect pets.

WillametteRiverOutlaw: Thats an unedcuated cheap shot at hunters..

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Folks who bait bears aren't hunters and certainly aren't sportsmen.

Look on the bright side, Humane Society cares more for pets, including hunting dogs, than do fringe "sportsman" groups or chemical mfg.s and will continue the public service program.

Brion

Folks who bait bears aren't hunters and certainly aren't sportsmen.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Do you hunt at all? If so, have you ever hunted bear?

I've killed almost 20 bear, mostly black bear but a few brown bear, all spot and stalk. I was also living in an area of VERRY HIGH bear numbers.
I will never hunt bear again but feel that bait and dogs are a one of the few ways to successfully get a bear in the lower 48.

What makes you think that these methods are "unsportsman like"? PETA propaganda?

[Beefcake]

[quote]Originally posted by BrionLutz:

Basically, sportsmen have a blind spot (mainly on their right side) that has them supporting politicians and groups that work against the best interests of sportsmen.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Brion- Am I reading this right? Most sportsmen are Republicans, and all Republicans are stupid?! If I understand your reference correctly, you have just lost my respect for you. :depressed:

I am somewhat new to the board. While I don't agree with all of your posts, I have always been impressed with your knowledge, logic, and ability to articulate your point. I guess I was wrong.

Instead of supporting companies that put a few token dollars into public service anouncements while supporting radical groups, why don't we spend our efforts trying to outlaw poisonous antifreeze completely. Since they have come up with a non-toxic alternative, a single dead child or 100,000 dead pets seems like too high of a price to keep traditional antifreeze on the market. Shouldn't we be writing letters to the government trying to get it banned instead of bashing each other?

In reference to boycotting the product, I would boycott in a minute except that the product is the only non-toxic alternative. Luckily, the company realized its mistake and cut its ties with AHA.

I will, however, quit supporting the humane society. I always thought their agenda was limited to protecting domestic animals; I didn't know that their mission statement involved taking away my rights to hunt and fish.

I love nature, and I grew up reading Edward Abbey books, but I can't support radical groups that don't even try to understand the issues. "Animals are cute and fuzzy and may have feelings, so we should protect them at any cost, even the cost of human lives." What a crock! Have you noticed that since Oregon's restrictions on bear and cougar hunting went into effect, there have been more news stories about wild animals in peoples' backyards? Give it a couple more years; we will be too busy trying to protect our families and pets from cougars to have time to argue about antifreeze.

We live in a sportsman's paradise, but we are surrounded by birkenstock-wearin' bleeding hearts that continue to take away our rights. For instance, there has been a lot of media surrounding the reasons the government shouldn't allow oil drilling in Alaska, but most people don't realize that most of the opposition to the drilling (and political funding) came from Eugene, Oregon. Most of my friends and relatives in Alaska have made their living off the wildlife (commercial fishing, bush pilots, hunting guides), and they all supported the drilling. In addition, most of the natives supported drilling because it promised new jobs, but our local liberals must know more than the people that the decision actually affects. :grin:

Back to the original point of my post, I don't think that our current administration is looking out for sportsmen as much as it is pleasing business interests (as is evidenced by the potential de-listing of endangered fish without proper data), but it is better than the alternative. Most of the Democratic candidates of late have only been interested in taking away our guns and rods, and redirecting wildlife funding to welfare programs. If all Republicans are stupid, then I'm proud to wear my dunce cap. [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]

Scott Johnson

[ 10-27-2003, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Beefcake ]

[Capin' Dan]

Folks, I think that Brion is doing a little leg pulling here. I can't these are his beliefs if he fishes, hunts or even like getting in the outdoors.

I will tell you this. This isn't the first time this has come up about he Humane Society. there are other organizations out there to support that does great things for our pets.

As far as the bear hunting, hound hunting and trappinbg thing goes lets stick together. I will bet that the hunters will stick beside the sportsfishermen when thay are loosing part of their sport.
Some people feel that using bait is wrong rather it be live or dead. isn't this almost like the bear baiting thing. (No real sportsman would use bait for fish or fish for crabs) No different than SPORTSMAN using BAIT FOR BEARS.

Dan,
You are right. What's next? Retrievers and pointers?

[Jellyhead]

That's right Dan. According to that type of mentality, if we are to be sportsmen, we must strap on the snorkle, mask and fins, and not use bait to lure in our quarry of fish and crabs.

Grab the speargun! I'm gonna be a real sportsman from now on!

Aaron

[BrionLutz]

Capin Dan,

Some people feel that using bait is wrong rather it be live or dead. isn't this almost like the bear baiting thing.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Maybe the difference between nets and sport fishing is a better comparison.

I'd be OK with fisherman having to use artificials but that's another wild thread topic. I love fishing with artificials, much more of a challenge. I admit to getting desperate in Spring and Fall and using herring but I'm working on artificials there also.

Fishing is a bit different in that you can't see the fish. Sport fishing, even with bait is no sure thing while stuff like bear baiting, salt licks, headlighting and other unsportsmanlike activity is banned in most states for that very reason.

Didn't we recently ban dogs from cougar hunting in Oregon?

Bird dogs are a bit different also, they flush the game out but you still have to shoot it on the wing. Shooting a treed cougar doesn't seem very sporting...something about sitting ducks.

On the other hand, someone who can track a cougar by himself and manage to shoot it is one damfino hunter.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Beefcake,

Am I reading this right? Most sportsmen are Republicans, and all Republicans are stupid?!

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Be interesting to look at the actual demographics on that one. We know for a fact that all snaggers are Republican...just kidding, just kidding.

The editorial was in Field and Stream, not exactly an "enviromental wacko" publication. The point of the Field and Stream editorial was that sportsmen too often are blinded by side issues and tend to vote for folks who promote policies that are bad for hunting and fishing.

Field and Stream editors were supporting the The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership. Check out their website. See if the people you voted for support or oppose the pro-fishing and hunting policies that the TRCP lists.

Look at salmon issues in the Pacfic NW.

Besides what the politicians do, looking at this thread where folks stop supporting a program that helps stop the poisoning of pets. Hunters and fishermen seem to be very attached to their pets so an appropriate issue and a good program to support, regardless of who is running it.

Another good example you will see here are folks who will not work with other pro-salmon groups because they don't like other issues. Commerical fishermen for example support a lot of policies that benefit sportfishermen but many sportfishermen will not work with them on these pro-salmon, pro-sportfishing issues and, because of that, less salmon for all of us.

That kind of narrow minded behavior is what the Field and Stream editorial was criticizing.

Brion

[BrionLutz]

Lured In,

But, my unwillingness to participate in them does not make them wrong or otherwise somehow less "sportsman like".

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I'd agree with that. I don't hunt (shot a few critters as a kid with my .22. I didn't like it. My Dad made me track down wounded animals. I stopped shooting them) but a lot of my friends hunt. No different than fishing really. Not moralizing about hunting.

However, we do ban a lot of stuff for being unsportsmanlike, salt licks, headlighting deer, snagging fish, etc.

On the Chesapeake, folks used to using "punting" to "hunt" geese and ducks. Used to be clouds of ducks and geese and they'd sneak up on them with a huge cannon while they were on sitting on the water.

It's banned, partly because it is considered unsportsmanlike. We don't shoot sitting ducks.
I think folks banned hunting cougar with dogs in Oregon for similar reasons.

I don't see a big "danger" in people deciding what is sportsmanlike or not. Kind of what the definition is of "sportsman", different set of rules.

As far as supporting AHA via purchases, are you really so naive as to believe this was the best way to accomplish awareness around pet deaths via antifreeze? Regardless of what the potential outcome may be, the means do not justify the end.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Hmm...means was chemical mfgs using customer rebates to fund a public service awareness of dangers of their products. End was a program that did that. Don't see an "ends and means" debate there. Means and end were both good.

But, support the AHA in the process is not how it should be done.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It wasn't. The money went to the specific program on dangers of anti-freeze. Humane Society has been running it for years with or without corporate help.

Beyond the specifics, the debate reminds me of the captain of the tug that towed the Exxon Valdez back to LA. Turned out he was a contributor to GreenPeace. When asked why he supported a "radical" group that was out to "end his job", he said it was good that there were groups like Greenpeace out there pushing the envelope and public awareness or nothing would get done.

Again our decisions on managing our wildlife and fish species needs to be based on sound science and not just on emotional appeals.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Wouldn't the "sound science" be supporting a public awareness program regarding the dangers of anti-freeze vs. the "emotional" appeal to stop doing it because of the philsophy of the group doing the "good science"?

Brion

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
The challenge of the hunt is what it is all about. If they think hunting's tough, try fishing...you can't even see'em most of the time.
[/QB]

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I fish as much or more than anyone on this board (avg 2 days a week). You really have no Idea at all what your talking about. Instead you are part of the problem who make decisions based on how something feels to them (99% of the time based on false information put out by the bunny hugging media). Do some real research, read stories of what its all about (hound hunting and the challenges). And how that these methods allow for selective harvest of prime animals instead of females w/young. 99.99% of cougars that are shot in or post measure 28 are by people who just stumble into them while in purusit of other game and shoot them indescriminately w/o knowledge of whether or its a tom or a female w/young.

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Mods,
This belongs on the LIG board..

Clueless

Haven't had this good of a laugh for weeks.

The challenge of the hunt is what it is all about. If they think hunting's tough, try fishing...you can't even see'em most of the time

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

[willametteriveroutlaw]

Keta,
That statement proves my point... (brions qoute)
Actually its pretty funny..

[Critr Gitr]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:


On the Chesapeake, folks used to using "punting" to "hunt" geese and ducks. Used to be clouds of ducks and geese and they'd sneak up on them with a huge cannon while they were on sitting on the water.

It's banned, partly because it is considered unsportsmanlike. We don't shoot sitting ducks.
I think folks banned hunting cougar with dogs in Oregon for similar reasons.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

BL,

You should really check your facts again - I grew up on the Chesapeake but long after they outlawed punt guns. That method went out with the MARKET hunters - not sport hunting. Its banned because market hunting was banned and things like bag limits were put in place to protect the resource - not because of someone's opinion.

That's the same old rhetoric PETA, HSUS and other have used. Next you'll say the loss of the passenger pigeons were the work of Pheasant Forever, or Ducks Ulimited !!

I don't see a big "danger" in people deciding what is sportsmanlike or not. Kind of what the definition is of "sportsman", different set of rules.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">

That's the problem - you aren't seeing the whole picture. You are buying into their line. Do you honestly believe that these self-righteous folks have the best interest of the wildlife in mind ? Its about money and control - exactly how much of HSUS & PETAs money goes into doing something productive instead of something that feels good ?

Since your hunting opinions are admittedly not developed by 1st hand knowledge (emotions maybe ?) Here is a good question ?

How many bear cubs have been orphaned by changes to harvest methods like Measure 18 ?
Instead of being able to get up close and personal where its easier to determine sex and wether a sow has cubs, most bears are harvested in chance encounters and long distance shots where determining such things are pretty difficult.
How can ya go to bed at night knowing that the likes of Smokey, Booboo or Winnie lost their mommies ?

Oh the horror.............

When will it end? Kentucky Fried Tofu

[DanS]

So, you can see the fish ??

[Miss B Haven]

Keta- she's an expert on this dontcha know? Right up her alley! :grin:

"to be bred and drugged to be so top-heavy that they can barely walk"

[nerta]

This reply is to Brion... I'll tell you a story about hunting bear in Oregon prior to the ban on using dogs. (The sun is rising over the Warners and shedding a hue of orange light across the mountains, god it's pretty. All of the sudden the dogs pick up the scent of a bear and their song starts! We release them from the leashes and off they go hot on the trail. Up the ridge, we are running to keep up with them, gaining about a half a foot of elevation every step. We reach the top of the ridge and the dogs are already at the bottom of the next ridge and hauling arse. We continue running down until we reach the creek, wade through about waist deep and start up the next ridge, my lungs are bursting and the adrenalin is flowing, up we go loosing the sound of the dogs. When we reach the top of the ridge the dogs are in the bottom of the next draw, singing but still moving. Down we run trying to catch the dogs. At this point I am wondering, what I have gotten myself into? I'm wet, my pants being wet are starting to chafe my legs, I hurt, but the dogs keep going. Just over the next ridge it sound's like the dogs have treed the bear! Now I'm gaining the second wind, we reach the dogs and the bear is up the tree. We looked the bear over real well, decided it was to small to take. Pulled the dogs off and let the bear go. I looked at my watch, it's now five and a half hours since we started on this adventure. I looked at the maps to figure out where were at. We are four plus miles from the truck as the crow fly's. On the way back to the truck, I noted the track we took, about seven miles following the dogs, not a bee line by any means. We've gained and lost twice, over 2000 feet of elevation. But this was one of the best hunts I had been on in my life....)))) And you have the audacity to say it's not sportman like to chase bear with dogs. You have no idea what a sportsman is.... Your comments about this subject proved beyond any doubt your experience is limited to propaganda with no first hand experience.

DanS,

So, you can see the fish ??

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Yes I can. Sometimes with my eyes, sometimes with my electronics and sometimes with my brain.
Fish generally are found around structure, current/temperature breaks or feed. One should never randomly troll or cast if one wants to be a 10%er.

[Norm]

Originally posted by BrionLutz:
It's banned, partly because it is considered unsportsmanlike. We don't shoot sitting ducks.
I think folks banned hunting cougar with dogs in Oregon for similar reasons.

I don't see a big "danger" in people deciding what is sportsmanlike or not. Kind of what the definition is of "sportsman", different set of rules.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">The danger is when you take wildlife management out of the hands of professionals. Most people don't have a clue of why sportsman use dogs and bait in the pursuit of Couger and Bears. Critr Gitr has it right

Originally posted by Critr Gitr:
How many bear cubs have been orphaned by changes to harvest methods like Measure 18 ?
Instead of being able to get up close and personal where its easier to determine sex and wether a sow has cubs, most bears are harvested in chance encounters and long distance shots where determining such things are pretty difficult.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">And the people who supported measure 18 are the first ones to complain when their poodle gets eaten by the big bad couger. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img] . Taking Couger or Bear over bait or with dogs is no cake-walk, now the only ones who do this are "damage control trappers". Only you and I pay for it and the meat and hide goes to wast.

[ 10-27-2003, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Norm ]

[BrionLutz]

WillametteRiverOutlaw,

Do some real research, read stories of what its all about (hound hunting and the challenges).

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What is the "real research" on bear baiting? I spend about a month a year in Utah and it's been debated there pretty extensively in the papers and the local hunting and fishing columns.

Certainly doesn't sound like anything any sportsman would do. Bait and dogs? Sheesh. The bear should just mail in the rug.

Brion

[freespool]

WRO,you have greatly underestimated Mr. Lutz fishing time. From what I've seen out there he fishes 4-5 days a week. Pay attention and you may learn something from him.

[ 10-28-2003, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: freespool ]

[BrionLutz]

Crit'r,

You should really check your facts again - I grew up on the Chesapeake but long after they outlawed punt guns. That method went out with the MARKET hunters - not sport hunting.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not allowed today as a "sport" method either. As noted it was banned in part because it was and is considered unsportmanlike to shoot sitting ducks.

RESTRICTION:No person shall take migratory game birds: With a trap, snare, net, crossbow, rifle, pistol, swivel gun,shotgun larger than 10-gauge,punt gun,battery gun,machine gun,fish hook,poison,drug,explosive or stupefying substance.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Those are the sport hunting rules.

It was also banned as a sporting method since the ducks and geese populations were decimated.

That's the same old rhetoric PETA, HSUS and other have used.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Man you guys must be PETA subscribers. You know everything position they hold...or do you? Does PETA have a position on "punting"?

And what is HSUS?

You fellas need to start quoting these folks and showing where they have some relevance to the Humane Society's poison anti-freeze education program.

Brion