The talking bunny speaks in the Oregonian

[TheRogue]

Bunny-Boy commentary

Was ODFW "flooded" with phone calls and e-mails?? Give me a little time, and I can set up something to flood someone with e-mails myself, same with phone calls. He had no comment about how some of the calls were of the terrorist variety. Imagine that.

What a wacko.

TR

[Lured In]

WHAT!?! :whazzup:

How do I get a rebuttal printed in the Oregonian?

Quote:
"When I was about 12, the age of the youngest participants in the Jan. 11 hunt, I killed a rabbit. What keeps coming back to me was my disconnection from that rabbit's life. I knew the gun was deadly. I aimed and pulled the trigger. But for some reason I didn't think I would kill her. I remember hiding her body under leaves out of shame and vowed never to kill again."

So basically, this guy had never been through hunter safety and/or his father(mentor) was not present? How could possibly believe that pointing and shooting a gun at a animal would not kill it? What planet is this guy from? He goes on to talk about hunters wasting game, but what did he do with the rabbit? HE BURIED IT! What a waste!

ARRGGGHHHH! (I am going to break my keyboard!)

[Rip'N'Lips]

I decided to un-retract my earlier comment, it went something like this...

I should take him hunting with me next time. I can have him wear a fur coat and hold antlers over his head.

Previous post removed to be more Politically Correct!

Rip'N'Lips

[ 01-22-2003, 03:59 PM: Message edited by: Rip'N'Lips ]

[Bill Monroe]

First, remember everyone that this can be read anywhere. We oughtta be careful about implications of violence, even those made in irritated jest...yes, it's still a free country, but those kinds of comments made anonymously by phone started this ruckus in the first place and this sort of thinking falls into a trap they could well spring back on us..

More important, though, every time we thump (pardon the choice of words) our chests, we empower anti-hunters by rewarding them a little with the thought that they've gained enough credibility to cause our reaction.

Rossell had every right to his voice in the paper and I told him so when he called after the first column. I personally don't think he has the right to be inaccurate or distort, and will tell that myself to the op-ed page editor.

There are addresses and phone numbers somewhere on that page for reader reactions...

[skein]

I'm not much of a "I told you so" guy, but here's my quote from a previous thread:

I hunt with the Hound's Club and have a good friend who was there for the hunt. He said that Matt Rossoll was there and went around with the hunters. My friend seemed to think he was "enlightened" some and actually enjoyed watching the dogs work - but not the actual shooting.

I told my buddy, "Don't kid yourself!" This guy was gathering ideas to use against us in the future. We are losing this war because we are fighting a defensive action. They attack, we respond. If we don't go over to the offensive (some call it proactive) we will spend all our energy chasing our tails.

Demanding that an investigation is done and that the guilty be found and prosecuted is one way to curb some of this BS. They didn't just threaten "ODFW" as an organization, they threathened the woman in charge of the Outdoor Women program and the kids and their moms who were there (or going to be there) for that hunt.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">My prediction: There will be no more hunting in Oregon in 10 years.

Skein

[TheRogue]

Rossell had every right to his voice in the paper and I told him so when he called after the first column. I personally don't think he has the right to be inaccurate or distort, and will tell that myself to the op-ed page editor.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">Excellent point Bill, and I completely agree that he has every right to voice his opinion. I just hope that someone who writes in to counter his opinion (and there will be a few ), get the same top-page full-column exposure that he did

TR

[Norm]

Some people are just born that way . It is just a editorial, but I think the.pro hunting crowd should be allowed a rebuttal since they allowed this garbage to be printed.

[OceanBlue]

I wonder if Mr. Rossell is a vegeterian?

[skein]

Bill,

I've pretty much had it with the Oregonian. My only rebuttal is my voice and my money. I will contact advertisers on that page and tell them I won't be shopping with them any more, and I certainly won't be buying any more Oregonian newspapers.

...I'm going to shout this part to show my anger and frustration:

IF A HUNTER HAD THREATENED MATT ROSSELL, THE OREGONIAN, STATE POLICE, CNN, AND THE LOS ANGELES TIMES WOULD BE TRACKING THAT PERSON DOWN. IT WOULD BE THE DAMNEST INVESTIGATIVE REPORTING SEEN IN YEARS!

Your reporters and editors are pathetic. I will call them and tell them that.

Skein

[Bill Monroe]

Rossell is a vegan and Skein, you do all that! Although the advertisers thing will be tough since there weren't any ads there...(Does this mean we can't use my goose floaters together one of these days?)

[Lured In]

Bill...what did I miss? Did someone threaten violence or are you referring to me almost breaking my keyboard from typing too hard? :shocked: :grin:

As far as 'thumping our chests', who says that has anything to do with credibility of the anti's? They are a REAL threat. That is not even a question, or did we already forget they made ODFW withdraw their support of the hunt? How is that not evidence of them being a credible threat? (Regardless of the fact it was virtually an act of terrorism.)

My question is how can the Oregonian allow blatantly false/misleading information to be printed? The Oregonian is not responsible for those that read their articles, nor the opinions expressed in them. They are (IMHO); however, responsible for the accuracy of the information and to avoid being a pulpit for propaganda.

Bill can you get me an email address for the Op/Ed people so I can send in a response?

[Tunamaster]

I agree with The Rogue's last comment. There are a lot of good people remaining silent on important issues. ODFW needs to be up front on the importance hunting plays in the conservation of wildlife and habitat. It needs to be done PUBLICLY and needs to be done NOW! Our hunting heritage is at stake. These city dwelling liberals need to celebrate the "diversity" that meat eating hunters add to society!!!! "Indeed, nothing seems to upset the champions of diversity so much as ideas other than their own."

[skein]

Hey!!! Maybe Rossell will wear his bunny suit to the Sportsman's Show! Maybe he'll even have a booth so we can learn more about the evils of hunting. Maybe he'll have real representatives from California that we can meet and have our picture taken with.

You know what? If he did, the Oregonian would spend more time covering him than they would covering the show.

Bill, I hope you won't hide those floaters away! I'd like to hunt with you some day, but you have to promise not to threaten to shoot me, or cut my fingers off, or any of the other things that were threatened during Matt Rossell's protest.

Advertisers? Albertson's is one of 'em on the web version of the commentary. That's Albertson's, everybody.

In ten years there won't be any hunting in Oregon, and the Oregonian will have played a part in that. Convince me I'm wrong.

Skein

[ 01-22-2003, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: skein ]

[OceanBlue]

How do you really feel about it Skein?

Albertson's. Hmmm... I wonder if they knew where their ad was going to be placed.

I do find it ironic, though, that they're pushing SAUSAGE in that ad. :tongue:

[Bill Monroe]

Well, I promise to keep producing the annual Hunt section for at least seven of the 10...if hunting doesn't survive the last three cuz I ain't here, sorryaboutthat. I'll be retired and probably hunting illegally.
FYI...we don't own our web site and have nothing whatsoever to do with it other than sell the publication rights to O-live to rehash on the site. It's their own production, so venting on Albertson's (my wife's favorite sausage) won't hurt us at all...

Here's the note I sent to Doug Bates, who does the op-ed page:

Doug,
I can imagine you may be starting to get reactions to the bunny suit piece...I've had some as well and they want to know how to reach you. Should I give them the op-ed email?

Here's a sample:
"My question is how can the Oregonian allow blatantly false/misleading information to be printed? The Oregonian is not responsible for those that read their articles, nor the opinions expressed in them. They are; however, responsible for the accuracy of the information and to avoid being a pulpit for propaganda.
Bill can you get me an email address for the Op/Ed people so I can send in a response?"

I should say, too, that I agree with a little of that, Doug. This isn't the first time I've been a bit dismayed that we allow letter writers or op-ed writers (although they aren't nearly as blatant) to print inaccuracies.
There were several in Matt's piece. I was there standing next to him at the hunt. 1. He didn't get there until noon and didn't see all 20 participants during the morning session so his saying only 8 showed up suggests support for his efforts when in fact there was none. (Dennis even asked me about that part since my column said 20). 2. He talked with, but did not distract anyone, and if he had, it's against the law. There were cops nearby. 3. Biologists believe hunting is, indeed, a management tool. etc., etc..there were more.

I certainly understand we're not going to ask reporters to interfere with readers' productions, but we're sure losing when we allow factual misrepresentation in any form in any part of the paper.
No, I don't know any answers.
But I do know that as a reader, I lose a little respect for the editorial pages and even well-written opposing opinions when I see it happen. I don't know much about the background of almost everything written there. But when I see errors in what I do know about, I suspect absolutely everything else.
And that hurts our credibility.
Doggone it.
Thanks for the vent.
Bill


And his response (I will talk privately with him at some point):

Sure, Bill, tell them to send their responses to oped@news.oregonian.com or better yet letters@news.oregonian.com
thx,
Doug


So there you go...send away, but a caution from a career writer...
Write it and vent, then let it sit for a while while you reflect...half a day or more...then rewrite it before pushing "send"

or send them to me and I'll pass them along.

[Lured In]

Bill thanks for your support and I will give you a chance to preview my response before I send it on.

If possible, please give us some feedback on your conversation with the Op/Ed editor.

[skein]

Bill, thanks.

Thanks for the names and email addresses (oped@news.oregonian.com ), thanks for the advice (vent, cool down, rewrite), and thanks for your stand.

I'm too close to this situation. I hunt with the Hound's Club. I hunt at EE Wilson with a disabled person who can't go many other places. And my wife is fairly active in the Outdoor Women program. Rossell attacked all of those - and whether he did it or not, there were real threats involved.

I'm not much of an activist, and I don't always use the right words, but I am tenacious. I sincerely want to call them on this one.

And I still believe hunting will be gone in 10 years.

Skein

[TheRogue]

Excellent Bill, thank you for pursuing this.

TR

[Tilla]

Skein
You were right. I remember your post that snapped me into the reality of the benefits of spying. One of the aspects that we have had in our favor is that these people do not know what they are talking about.
Now we need to just educate ourselves. Attend their meetings and rallys and such. :shocked:

[1pump]

A couple of nights ago, I had the TV on in the background while I was on ifish. "Jacka$$" was on MTV and they had a guy in a pink bunny suit getting chased down and mauled by an attack-trained Rottweiler. Hmmmm.... [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

[ 01-22-2003, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: 1pump ]

[Steeliehunter]

This kind of crap just burns me. Skein before my father passed away he had the same views as yourself. I lost my father this past deer season will I was hunting. Ironicly it was the best day and overall hunt I have had to date. My father lost his dad while they were hunting together. My grandfather turned to my dad after they had a good morning duck hunt and they started hunting pheasents and said this was the best day of his life. He died of a heart attack instantly. I now enjoy hunting with my two sons every day I can. My five year old is Oregon's 4th place duck and goose calling champion and my youngest is not far behind. To me there is no better time then spent in the field with your childern. My boys can identify more birds and animals then most kids twice thier age. I know they will have a great respect for the great outdoors and support it unlike those who try to stop hunting but then turn around and buy up important habbitat to build thier homes.

[lost_sailor]

Man, I just read that column. Where is that guy from?

I don't hunt, I don't want to. If I had to for food, I sure would. I have some fond memories of hunting with my dad. Thanks, Dad.

I can't imagine Oregon without hunters. There will still be hunting in 10 years. I'll fight for it, and like I said I'm not a hunter. But I was an Oregonian before I was born. I'm a bleeding-heart tree-hugger and I'm on YOUR SIDE.

This is another thing that happens when you let people move here from California.

[TheRogue]

Hmmmmm...several days later, and still no letters published from the pro-hunting side, while several anti-hunting ones have been published. Have there just been no submissions? :whazzup: :whazzup:

So, today, I sent the following letter in....not that I believe it will get published.


-----------------------------------------------------------
As an avid hunter, outdoorsman, and Oregonian, I was appalled, but not surprised, by the protest which took place over the recent Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) sponsored rabbit hunt. Radical people and groups such as Defense of Animals will always jump at a chance for media exposure. What I was surprised about was that ODFW capitulated so easily, and cancelled the hunt. It was only later that some people found out, thanks to the discussion board at www.ifish.net, that there were specific threats of violence directed toward ODFW employees concerning this hunt. Why this was not widely publicized by the press, I do not know. Once these threats were known, many people changed their opinion of ODFW's actions...but, still, very few sportsmen consider the total cancellation of the hunt a proper response. A more appropriate action would have been to officially "postpone" the event., but go ahead with it as soon as safely possible.

I fully support any citizen's right to protest. The actions taken by "bunny man" Matt Rossell, although quite ridiculous in many people's eyes, were completely legal. He apparently did not interfere with the hunt in any way, either on the scheduled day of the hunt, or on the day that the hound club stepped in. I wonder, though, what actions have been taken concerning these threats of violence toward State employees? Did the county sheriff get involved? Is there an ongoing investigation by the Oregon State Police and/or the Oregon Department of Justice? And why have these threats received such little exposure in the press?

It was a generous reach of goodwill by the local hound club to step in and sponsor this event. Unfortunately, this gesture of good will helped accomplish what the person(s) who made those threats of violence was trying to do. A legal, state-sponsored activity was cancelled, and ODFW was let off the hook.

It was sad to read Mr. Rossell's story. Notwithstanding all the inaccuracies in his commentary (and there were more than a few), hunting is not for everyone. It was obvious that his first hunting experience was not one that involved a mentor or family member. It should have. Perhaps that person could have explained to Mr. Rossell some of the many reasons for hunting. Tradition, family, camaraderie, exercise, getting out doors, teaching responsibility and gun safety are just a few of the many, INCLUDING population control. I hope that those single parent families who participated in this event which went on with the support of the hound club understood some of those reasons, and will continue the tradition.

Kyle Hensley

Lafayette, OR
------------------------------------------------------------

[ 01-24-2003, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[Lured In]

Here is my take on it. Too bad I am so long winded.

Let me know what you think.

On January 22 Mr. Matt Rossell had his opinion article printed in the Oregonian voicing his disapproval of the recent family rabbit hunt at E.E. Wilson Wildlife Area. His article was titled, “State sponsored killing is no family value.” It is obvious from his ‘rabbit suit’ antics that Mr. Rossell is a passionate anti-hunter. I use the term anti-hunter, because his position is weak with respect to his understanding of wildlife management and appears his only goal is to discredit hunters. His article is based on nothing more than his personal opinion and many of his statements were patently false and/or misleading.

I quote, “A flood of calls, e-mails and letters persuaded Department of Fish and Wildlife commissioners to postpone the hunt…” What he failed to mention is that apparently a few animal rights activist weighed in as well. He seems to have left out the part where these ‘activists’ threatened bodily harm of ODFW employees. According to an article in Medford Mail Tribune, these threats included, “You made a mistake teaching children how to shoot rabbits. People ought to aim their shotguns at you instead.” Another was, “You should be hunted down and have a bullet put through your head, and leave the bunnies alone.” Given the severity and near terror orientation of these threats ODFW received, I cannot blame them for withdrawing support of the hunt. These types of threats are beyond the scope of reason and approach (if not in fact) being illegal.

Mr. Rossell’s comments as not only misguided but, uneducated in terms of wildlife management. He states, “Every hunting lobbyist and their cousin weighed in, and the rhetoric was flying. Some claimed hunting manages wildlife, as if the critters couldn't manage without help.” If Mr. Rossell had any understanding of wildlife and had researched his topic, he would know that there are several leading animal advocacy groups (opposed to hunting) that not only admit animals need to be managed, but they are actively funding programs to do just that. One such effort is ‘sterilizing’ female deer with non-lethal darts to reduce the number of offspring.

Again Mr. Rossell states, “…mourning doves, squirrels, rabbits, waterfowl and thousands of predators -- are not overpopulated, and few biologists would argue they need to be hunted.” I wonder if Mr. Rossell has mad a trip up to the upper reaches of the Hudson Bay in Canada to see the complete wasteland that now exists there as a result of an over population of snow geese (waterfowl). The situation is so bad in some areas; the snow geese have devastated the land to the point that plants will not grow. So I ask you Mr. Rossell, how do you explain this if wild animals can manage themselves? As for the other animals you listed, ducks, morning doves, etc., many of these populations are at or near all time highs. Why you ask? This is a direct result of the wildlife management efforts of such organizations as Ducks Unlimited and yes, even Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). Why don’t we look at Elk or Wild Turkeys? Again these populations have come back from historic lows to all time highs nationally. The efforts of state and federal fish and wildlife departments, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the National Wild Turkey Federation are accomplishing this. Many of these organizations, including ODFW receive large portions of their budget from hunters’ direct contributions and license sales. There are more opportunities for the public to encounter wildlife as a direct result of these organizations management of wildlife.

Mr. Rossell seems to be seriously misinformed as to what is actually taking place in the real world outside of his bunny suit.

Perhaps the issue I find most frightening about Mr. Rossell’s article is that he admits, “When I was about 12, the age of the youngest participants in the Jan. 11 hunt, I killed a rabbit. What keeps coming back to me was my disconnection from that rabbit's life. I knew the gun was deadly. I aimed and pulled the trigger. But for some reason I didn't think I would kill her. I remember hiding her body under leaves out of shame and vowed never to kill again.” I hope that anyone reading this was as shocked as I was that he admits he wasted game, which is unlawful in any state. In truth this is considered poaching. My question for Mr. Rossell is, where was your father or hunting mentor while you were out ‘hunting’? How could you possibly be so misguided as to think when you pulled the trigger that you would not kill that rabbit? Your disconnection with that animal was a result of your ignorance, not as a result of taking a legal game animal. The connection with the animal comes from enjoying hunting with your heart, not your curiosity.

The families that were in attendance at this event were doing exactly what should have been done for you. All of the children that were hunting were required to have passed a Hunter Education class in order to receive their hunting license and participate. That class teaches wildlife conservation, hunting ethics (like not wasting game), and firearms safety (if you shoot something with a gun it will probably die). The parents in attendance with their children were showing parental wisdom and ensuring their children were introduced in a manner that was safe and informative.

Mr. Rossell has every right to protest and exercise his free speech. His efforts; however, would seem futile and possibly detrimental to his cause if he continues to base his beliefs on half-truths and false information.

[skein]

Rogue, Lured In,

[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

Well worded, intelligent, thoughtful responses. My hat is off to you.

Have I responded yet? No, I am ashamed to say. Every time I have tried to write, I have gotten so upset that the words simply don't come out right, and would probably do more damage than good. (Thanks for the advice, Bill Monroe)

I hope I can come up with something half as meaningful as what you gentlemen have written. Good job - and thanks.

Skein

[GutshotApe]

For what it's worth, here's my take on writing letters to the editor:

You need to decide if you want to take the editors to task or get your letter published. Either way, the letter needs to be short - and to the point. Editors won't wade thru long, convoluted screeds (not that I'm saying your letters are long, convoluted screeds ). If you aim to have it published it cannot exceed their maximum length. The shorter the better. The Eugene Register-Guard allows 250 words; the Oregonian 150. That's not very many words but is enough to convey a thought or two if carefully done. You can write longer guest editorials and the papers might print them if you have some special qualifications on the subject - but there is a lot of competition for space.

My advice is to write a very short letter of 75 to 100 words, or less, conveying the essence of your point - it will stand a much better chance of being printed

I've written about a dozen letters to the Oregonian, the R-G or other papers over the years and am batting about 80% (50% :depressed: with The Oreg.) and most printed letters were shorter than the maximum length allowed.

[ 01-24-2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: GutshotApe ]

[Rock Stick or Fish]

This issue has finally cracked me, I believe in hunting in Oregon and if I don't make a stand for pro-hunting it sounds like the extremists in the bunny suits will make it for me(90% of Oregonians may not hunt but I know that not every one supports him).

So what's it gonna take? Letters? representation? memberships? Is there an organization I can join?

I'm actually really upset about this whole thing...

RSF

[blacktail]

Just another reminder of why I don't subcribe to the Oregonian.

Mike

[TheRogue]

Rock Stick or Fish......

While I am not an active member, I do belong to the Oregon Hunters Association. I signed up long term, I hope to get the time to be involved when the kids get a little older. I know they've grown almost exponentially in the last few years, up to about 9,000 members??

Probably the best organization to join, to keep the money you spend in state.

I wonder, maybe I need to call my chapter president, and ask if OHA is going to have an official response to this??

TR