Democrats A Threat To Sportsmen?

[missfishylicious]

MF,

What does a pudgy propagandist making a movie about something he has absolutely no clue about have to do with discussing politics with you? Farenheight 911 or 922 or 577 or whatever is a movie, nothing more, nothing less. If there are facts contained within this movie, then Mr. Moore needs to cough them up and be accountable to questions as to where his so called factual information came from. If you are insinuating that you believe all the BS that Mr. Moore has to spew, I would never waste my time trying to talk to you about it anyway. I am sorry, but I find more factual information coming from the UFO seekers than from the Hollywood left. BTW, this is in no way shape of form a personal attack on you or your views and I sincerely hope you don't take it that way. I DISAGREE, ok? 

so i should know then that it was a personal attach on me then is that it

[BuckShotJon]

MF - I have sent you a IM in regards to your report.

Jon

[sbfpa_Mike]

Missfishy,

     When you eat an apple,  do you put the whole thing in your mouth,  or do you take one bite at a time?  The anti's and the activists bombard one issue at a time until they have eliminated all that we are guaranteed in the constitution.

PS-  Speaking of terrorists,  doesn't PETA's agenda include terrorist type activities?

[Fat Boy]

Miss Fishy, I'm not against you because of the Bush Kerry thing at all, I'm merely responding to your last statement.  My intent of the last thread was to push this thing back to the original topic and why.  OK?  By the way, I haven't seen the movie yet, supposed art, eh  , because I've been busy but my wife really has been bugging me to take her.  So, I guess I'll go but only because of you.  Normally, I'd tell her to get lost   Now if you're gonna make me read a book, then how the heck will I have any time to post any replies on these forums and have any fun at all!  It's like yer tryin' to get me back to school or somethin'! 

I'm simply looking at our threats as sportsmen and the context of this original post.  If I wasn't clear on my intent, then I apologize.  So, to elaborate on what I meant, I'm not saying that everyone in the Democrat Party is a problem.  I'm saying that Kerry the other leaders in the party aren't standing up against the forces within the party and/or that support the party to protect our rights to fish and hunt.  That is why groups like the Fund for Animals and PETA support him.  The people that are pushing for these reserves do very much want to expand them globally, not just one little place to protect.  That is the agenda, to end fishing.  If you don't believe me, that they don't want to ban fishing, then check out PETA's agenda on their web site, right from the horse's mouth.  These preserves aren't for just the cod industry either, it's all fishing, including someone in a small boat with one rod and reel and one chunk of bait and one hook.  There are preserves like this popping up all over the place, Florida, California, and they want more.  So, just how will having a few small places where you can't fish proserve the entire ecosystem?  Impossible.  And, they aren't small places, they're large and going to get larger if further legislation passes.  They want it all, that is how they intend to preserve.  It's not sensible legislation.  It's a preservationist, not conservationist attitude.  Preservationism doesn't support usage of a resource at all, but rather it supports banning all activities of a resource.  The more that you preserve, the more you ban a particular activity.  Who of the groups that are proposing this legislation are saying that sportsmen will be guaranteed public access to any place much less these preserves?  The more preserves they get, the less we have that we have now.  I'm not talking about preserves that have been around since the dawn of time.  I'm talking about places that we can fish and hunt recreationally that they are trying to take away from us.  It's happening, piece by piece.  And it's not just trawling, it's all fishing.  Sport fishing is not a problem for most species.  If a species is in trouble, then place a moratorium or closed season on them until the population rebounds, then regulate it sensibly.  Putting a moratorium on intentionally fishing for Great White Sharks if they are endangered wouldn't be an issue with me if it needs to be done.  A great example of how regulations such as these can help is the striped bass moratoriums put in place years ago by MD and Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay (the biggest striper nursery in the Atlantic and maybe th world).  The populations of these fish were in real dire straights, but after many closed seasons, combined with sensible pollution regulations, have allowed populations to rebound and create a fantastic fishery not only in MD and VA, but all along the Eastern seaboard including NY!  Now, restrictions and seasons are closely regulated and to many folks may seem to restrictive, but the DNR here is really trying to do the right thing.  And it worked.  Why not treat our oceans the same way, by regulating the species and placing bag limits in areas that are enforceable.  If you're going to establish protected areas, then protect them from the problem not all anglers.  What about places for our fawna to breed?  Well, in fisheries during spawning times by species we place closed seasons or more strict regs, but they are temporary, and also place size limits to protect juvenile fishies.  In hunting, seasons correspond to breeding time, but are closed during birth and nursing times.  Why during breeding time?  To prevent population explosions and keep the population in check.  Bag limits are determined that way as well, and based on population density.  In some instances even on preserves hunting would better serve the ecological balance rather than to simply ban hunting on principle.  Wouldn't it make more sense to close hunting when the populatioThat's what game management is all about.

And, like I said, it's not what the Republican Party is doing to make things better that gets my vote (regarding our rights as sportsmen), it's what they aren't doing - they aren't pushing the PETA agenda.  If the Democrat politicians actually came out and said that they'd pass legislation that would protect our rights to hunt and fish, and to bear arms, then they'd get my vote over the party that does nothing.  But, the Democrats (politicians) aren't doing that.  They just have a few photos taken of them hunting pheasants or something and expect all of us sportsmen to think that they are on our side and for us to not worry.  But guess what, they still take the anti's campaign contributions and don't condemn their actions, do they?  If so, name one instance!  Money talks.  Favors are returned.  What I don't understand is how come all of the registered Democrats that hunt and fish aren't all up in arms about this?  Why just sit back and listen to the retoric as our heritage will slowly be taken away from us?  That's one reason that I'm no longer a Democrat (after being registered in the party for 16 years).  I simply got tired of not being able to vote in the primary for the party that seemed to respect our rights the most.  There are other issues, but these are important to me, my freedoms.

And, I also have some concerns about the current administration and some of their economic policies.  This administration is listening though, because they are bending on some of the issues, like coming up with a more sensible bill on protecting wetlands than they had previously drawn up.  That was because sportsmen spoke out.  I'm not going to get into what happened in the previous administration because it's history now, but we took a back seat.  I'm tired of taking the back seat since it's my licenses, fees, taxes on the tackle and hunting equipment that I buy that pay for all of this including what they want to keep me off of.  If they're going to keep us off, then let's tax the rest of the users that pay nothing!

Good point Mike.

[missfishylicious]

Missfishy,

     When you eat an apple,  do you put the whole thing in your mouth,  or do you take one bite at a time?  The anti's and the activists bombard one issue at a time until they have eliminated all that we are guaranteed in the constitution.

PS-  Speaking of terrorists,  doesn't PETA's agenda include terrorist type activities?

How big is the apple?
did I stick up for peta in some way?

[missfishylicious]

Miss Fishy, I'm not against you because of the Bush Kerry thing at all, I'm merely responding to your last statement.  My intent of the last thread was to push this thing back to the original topic and why.  OK?  By the way, I haven't seen the movie yet, supposed art, eh  , because I've been busy but my wife really has been bugging me to take her.  So, I guess I'll go but only because of you.  Normally, I'd tell her to get lost   Now if you're gonna make me read a book, then how the heck will I have any time to post any replies on these forums and have any fun at all!  It's like yer tryin' to get me back to school or somethin'! 

I'm simply looking at our threats as sportsmen and the context of this original post.  If I wasn't clear on my intent, then I apologize.  So, to elaborate on what I meant, I'm not saying that everyone in the Democrat Party is a problem.  I'm saying that Kerry the other leaders in the party aren't standing up against the forces within the party and/or that support the party to protect our rights to fish and hunt.  That is why groups like the Fund for Animals and PETA support him.  The people that are pushing for these reserves do very much want to expand them globally, not just one little place to protect.  That is the agenda, to end fishing.  If you don't believe me, that they don't want to ban fishing, then check out PETA's agenda on their web site, right from the horse's mouth.  These preserves aren't for just the cod industry either, it's all fishing, including someone in a small boat with one rod and reel and one chunk of bait and one hook.  There are preserves like this popping up all over the place, Florida, California, and they want more.  So, just how will having a few small places where you can't fish proserve the entire ecosystem?  Impossible.  And, they aren't small places, they're large and going to get larger if further legislation passes.  They want it all, that is how they intend to preserve.  It's not sensible legislation.  It's a preservationist, not conservationist attitude.  Preservationism doesn't support usage of a resource at all, but rather it supports banning all activities of a resource.  The more that you preserve, the more you ban a particular activity.  Who of the groups that are proposing this legislation are saying that sportsmen will be guaranteed public access to any place much less these preserves?  The more preserves they get, the less we have that we have now.  I'm not talking about preserves that have been around since the dawn of time.  I'm talking about places that we can fish and hunt recreationally that they are trying to take away from us.  It's happening, piece by piece.  And it's not just trawling, it's all fishing.  Sport fishing is not a problem for most species.  If a species is in trouble, then place a moratorium or closed season on them until the population rebounds, then regulate it sensibly.  Putting a moratorium on intentionally fishing for Great White Sharks if they are endangered wouldn't be an issue with me if it needs to be done.  A great example of how regulations such as these can help is the striped bass moratoriums put in place years ago by MD and Virginia on the Chesapeake Bay (the biggest striper nursery in the Atlantic and maybe th world).  The populations of these fish were in real dire straights, but after many closed seasons, combined with sensible pollution regulations, have allowed populations to rebound and create a fantastic fishery not only in MD and VA, but all along the Eastern seaboard including NY!  Now, restrictions and seasons are closely regulated and to many folks may seem to restrictive, but the DNR here is really trying to do the right thing.  And it worked.  Why not treat our oceans the same way, by regulating the species and placing bag limits in areas that are enforceable.  If you're going to establish protected areas, then protect them from the problem not all anglers.  What about places for our fawna to breed?  Well, in fisheries during spawning times by species we place closed seasons or more strict regs, but they are temporary, and also place size limits to protect juvenile fishies.  In hunting, seasons correspond to breeding time, but are closed during birth and nursing times.  Why during breeding time?  To prevent population explosions and keep the population in check.  Bag limits are determined that way as well, and based on population density.  In some instances even on preserves hunting would better serve the ecological balance rather than to simply ban hunting on principle.  Wouldn't it make more sense to close hunting when the populatioThat's what game management is all about.

And, like I said, it's not what the Republican Party is doing to make things better that gets my vote (regarding our rights as sportsmen), it's what they aren't doing - they aren't pushing the PETA agenda.  If the Democrat politicians actually came out and said that they'd pass legislation that would protect our rights to hunt and fish, and to bear arms, then they'd get my vote over the party that does nothing.  But, the Democrats (politicians) aren't doing that.  They just have a few photos taken of them hunting pheasants or something and expect all of us sportsmen to think that they are on our side and for us to not worry.  But guess what, they still take the anti's campaign contributions and don't condemn their actions, do they?  If so, name one instance!  Money talks.  Favors are returned.  What I don't understand is how come all of the registered Democrats that hunt and fish aren't all up in arms about this?  Why just sit back and listen to the retoric as our heritage will slowly be taken away from us?  That's one reason that I'm no longer a Democrat (after being registered in the party for 16 years).  I simply got tired of not being able to vote in the primary for the party that seemed to respect our rights the most.  There are other issues, but these are important to me, my freedoms.

And, I also have some concerns about the current administration and some of their economic policies.  This administration is listening though, because they are bending on some of the issues, like coming up with a more sensible bill on protecting wetlands than they had previously drawn up.  That was because sportsmen spoke out.  I'm not going to get into what happened in the previous administration because it's history now, but we took a back seat.  I'm tired of taking the back seat since it's my licenses, fees, taxes on the tackle and hunting equipment that I buy that pay for all of this including what they want to keep me off of.  If they're going to keep us off, then let's tax the rest of the users that pay nothing!

Good point Mike.

I agree 100% with you on peta

years ago whan they first got going they sent me literature et that time there agenda was to get after labs for using animals in there experiments they had all the sad pictures and sounded legit so I sent them a few bucks (stupid me )
by the end of that year they were sending me all kinds of stuff about how the dairy industry and the beef farmers are creul to animals and we shouldn't eat meat or drink milk
i wrote them a letter telling them how sad it was to me that they had to get so fanatical with there cause and that they had lost any support I may have had for them in the begining

they had a good cause in the beging but you get to many people with farout agendas and boom your cause is dead I don't believe they have as much much power with the demacrats as you think it's just a matter of the sqeecky wheel getting the grease

just let me know who to right to and on what issue I'll be happy to fit it in between my two books I'm reading and of course posting on here 

I just feel the issues the movie points out are more important right now than even fishing and hunting (did I just say that out load?)
well I got a couple of steaks to put on the grill sure did pay a lot more for them than i did a few years ago come to think of it my oil gas and phone bill have skyrocket too hmmm i wonder why 

[TimC1086]

My God. I could never figure out how so many people voted for Bush. But now I see...

Despite your condemnation of Fahrenheit 911 as 'factless' (a statement I will dispute if so provoked), you blindly follow George Bush's every whim. Why? Why is Saddam Hussein the "grand-daddy of all terrorists?" Did you seriously feel personally threatened by Saddam Hussein? Sure, what he did to his people was awful and he was a ruthless dictator. But how can you honestly believe he represented a clear and present danger to the security of teh United States, to the degree of justifying a war against Iraq?
And I would like to clear up one of your cheaper arguments right now. I don't oppose the troops; that would be treasonous. I oppose the war:  that's my Constitutionally granted right.
I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated... kind of like, oh I dont know, "faulty" intelligence; a "concrete" link between Iraq and Al - Qaeda; an imminent threat to teh saftey of America becauise of Saddam Hussein's presence atop teh Iraqi throne.  Oh, wait I get it- it must have been all those WMDs he has.

[Bobman]

Missfishy - If you're concerned with the issues that the lying, hypocritical, anti-American (that should cover it!) Michael Moore has put into his books and movies then you should look at his work with an open mind and try to learn the truth about what he says.  Moore is supposedly representing the average American against corporate American and rich white Americans.  Well how many people with several best selling books and movies are average Americans and not rich white Americans?  And talk about closed minded, here is a person who has stated that his goal is to get rid of Bush and corporate America.  He doesn't care how as long as it happens, as evidenced by his lies and deceptions in everything he does.  Open mindedness is about listening to both sides of and issue and debating it in a civilized manner.  Hardly a Moore personality trait.  Here is a website you should check out:

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

This isn't written by a right-wing fanatic, in fact the author doesn't agree with a lot of the Bush Administration policies.  But he is one of a number of people (from both sides of the issue) that have acknowledged what a steaming pile of s**t Moore's works are.  This website has actual facts to refute what Moore says, as well as referencing the poor defense that Moore and his followers try to site.

As for Kerry, if you are a hunter or gun owner you should be scared.  Don't let his campaign stunt (photo-op on the target range) fool you.  Read this article on the NRA website:

http://www.nraila.org/issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=136

He can't lie about his voting in Congress, it's part of the public record.

I'm sure if you're that much of a Michael Moore fan and that much against Bush these two websites won't change your mind, but hopefully you'll spend some time reading them in an effort to get both sides of the issues.

I don't agree that all Democrats are bad for sportsmen and all Republicans are good, but the Democratic party as a whole sides with the antis (gun, hunting, fishing) and tree huggers and it would take a very good Democratic politician to not cave in to party pressure and go against his beliefs of supporting sportsmen.  I'm a registered Republican (very conservative in case you haven't noticed) but I never blindly vote the party line.  There are certain issues that government deals with that sway my vote (like gun rights, hunting and fishing issues) because I think that elected officials can do something about them and that don't (like abortion) because I don't think those issues will ever be settled.  I try to look at the politicians stand on issues that interest me, as well as both sides of those issues and vote accordingly.  Sometimes it's a Democrat the gets my vote but most times it's a Republican.

Just my 2 cents.  I'd rather talk fishing but some things get me going just as much  !

[Fat Boy]

I don't believe they have as much much power with the demacrats as you think it's just a matter of the sqeecky wheel getting the grease

Hope yer right Miss Fishy!

And I would like to clear up one of your cheaper arguments right now. I don't oppose the troops; that would be treasonous. I oppose the war:  that's my Constitutionally granted right.

So Tim, I'm not going to try to change your mind but let me ask you a couple questions.  I don't understand how you can support the troops and not the war.  I mean, well, maybe you can disagree with why we went to war in the first place, I'll accept that.  We can debate all day long and not agree on that.  But what about now?  Do you want us to win the war in Iraq?  If so, then you support the war.  To not support it now means that you want the troops to fail in their efforts and then eventually pull out?  Or, do you want our troops to prevail and help that country establish a peaceful civil goverment?  I simply cant understand how you can support our troops but now not support the war.  Troops, or soldiers, have a purpose and that is to fight, in wars, whether you like it or not.  If there were no wars or threats, then we wouldn't need them.  So, maybe you can enlighten me a little on that one.

I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated...

 

If you're referring to my post, then perhaps you didn't read it correctly.  The title of the thread to begin with had nothing to do with Bush.  Democrats don't return the campaign money sent to them by PETA, do they?  I never said that they endorse PETA's agenda as a party, but they are sympathetic to them simply because they don't confront them on their far left agenda either.  Those are potential votes that they'd lose, right?  What I said was that PETA supports the Democratic Party.  The contribute a lot of money and have much influence and many members that will vote for the Democratic ticket.  I doubt that there will be many strong PETA supporters that will vote Republican.  Again, I'm not a mental heavyweight, but I thought that I wrote that in a clear manner so that anyone, including idiots like me, can understand that.  What part of that was fabricated?  Maybe you can tell me the truth about organizations like PETA and who they want in office?  Perhaps I can do some research on them and tell you, so more to come on that when I have time.  And just why would they want a man like John Kerry and others in their party in office?  Because they have a much better chance to push their agenda and get the laws passed that they want, especially if they have Congress, the President, local politicians, and the judges on their side.  If you fish, then perhaps you should check out their plan of attack.  I did.  They are very organized, funded, have a big following, and very crafty and aggressive in their approach and a very defined mission.  What other influence politically do they have?  How about the school system and officials that allow them to address our children and provide literature (falsely in the name of science) about how evil hunting and fishing really is.  Do you think that those in charge of our schools that allow this aren't Democrats?  Guess what folks, they will win this war some day in the U.S.  It's just a matter of time.  Think not?  License sales in the U.S. for both fishing and hunting are dropping.  Children just aren't interested in the outdoors (as a nation) as much as before.  Too much urban area.

[Fat Boy]

Oh yeah, and they are joining forces with many organizations, some of which are more radical than they are, not only with funding but also by collaboration to end our favorite sports by either legal or illegal means.

Fact, not fabrication.

[TimC1086]

OK FB-

Youre pretty much right about the first part- I understand that the soldiers are doing what they're told, and I support them in this. Also, I opposed the necessity of the war from teh start. What I feel now is that obviously, I would like our troops to be safe, but the war to be stopped before we get ourselves any deeper. We are naïve to think that we can install a successful fledgling governement just like that, in a country that has been under totalitarian regime.

Secondly, the PETA reference wasnt  to your post, but to the one that brought up a connection between PETA ad terrorism, which was irrelevant to the theme of democrats/sporting rights.

fatboy, while we seem to have an overall difference of opinion, I appreciate that you have taken the time to think out what you say.

finally, ill try ever so hard to get back on topic with lashing out against our current government right now.  will fishing/hunting rights play a significant role in this years election? probably not.  is there a reason to believe that kerry would bring about changes drastically reducing our sporting rights? doubtful. sure, ill take your word that PETA made significant campaign contributions. would you turn them down?

i dont think this is something that bickering amongst ourselves will definitively answer; rather, its sort of a "wait-and-see."  but has bush, in 4 years, in any way expanded our sporting rights? ( ir eally dont know, maybe he did.) i just dont think that we should side with a president just because teh other guy might possibly maybe do something which might kind of affect what we like to do in our free time but hasnt promised to do anything of teh sort yet. we should be focusing on if we feel better off today than we did four years ago. i, for one, dont. foreigners are disgusted with our "well-intentioned" "altruism", we have thousands of troops overseas with no definitive end in sight, fighting a war which was launched on decidedly faulty intelligence, and teh economy isnt the economy of the clinton administration.

god help us this november

[TroutFishingBear]

we have a few national parks were you cant fish and hunt ...after all the animals have to have a place to breed

LMAO the animals in these parks are extremely overpopulated and stunted. I know, I have seen. Have you ever been to Yellowstone, a prime example? Since you are requesting facts, go there and see the game, then you will agree with me.

[TroutFishingBear]

I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated... kind of like, oh I dont know, "faulty" intelligence; a "concrete" link between Iraq and Al - Qaeda; an imminent threat to teh saftey of America becauise of Saddam Hussein's presence atop teh Iraqi throne.  Oh, wait I get it- it must have been all those WMDs he has.

You would not be saying this if al gore were in office right now. You would be supporting the war. Since even Democrats, Clinton included, said these things about saddam. Not just bush. Bush is just the guy in office so you blame him. Clinton and others both said things about Saddam being a terrorist. Watch some of his older speeches, particularly around about the time we bombed them some during his presidency, you will here him say things like this about saddam.

Can't criticize it now.

[fastribs85]

bear your right i have never been there but have read about the problem here is my problem with peta they say not to eat meat and vegtables and stuffbut ive seen them eating big macs after a rally  any way gov. rendell has not tried to stop any of the problems in our state as far as our highway through the elk habitat that rendell started  the elk habitat that is not the highway now we have a highway through one of the most beautiful parts of the  state and soon to have a giant chemical incenerator and trash dump right off of the highway in the elk area and he hasnt said a word now he is also placing people in place at the dcnr in the state and pushing for people in the pagc that support a merger now our gc does a fine job making money they make more for every acre of timber they sell off then the dcnr but dcnr can do better they have no knowledge of game or fish no the fbc mght not be doing so well but he is pushing people there for a merger he also does not want to help the game or fish commision financially and the fish commision wants money to help fix dams and canals the stae put inwith our taxes and has since given to the fish commision and then taxed them for it and now will not help out they want to repair them for more recreation oppertunities and to stop from them dissapearing now he is extreamly anti gun until the nra had a convention in philly and it brought big bucks to the city and anothrer thing he is also trying to let the state game lands be used for private use like a hoarse back riding tour company is doing and snowobiles atvs and other things this will take federal money from the state that is to be used to keep the fish and game commisions running and our lands to be used

[TimC1086]

I'm really frustrated by the sheer lack of intelligence or factual points in the banter on this board. I mean, where did we all of a sudden assume that Democrats, since they oppose Bush, support PETA's 'terrorist' activities?  Things are just being fabricated... kind of like, oh I dont know, "faulty" intelligence; a "concrete" link between Iraq and Al - Qaeda; an imminent threat to teh saftey of America becauise of Saddam Hussein's presence atop teh Iraqi throne.  Oh, wait I get it- it must have been all those WMDs he has.

You would not be saying this if al gore were in office right now. You would be supporting the war. Since even Democrats, Clinton included, said these things about saddam. Not just bush. Bush is just the guy in office so you blame him. Clinton and others both said things about Saddam being a terrorist. Watch some of his older speeches, particularly around about the time we bombed them some during his presidency, you will here him say things like this about saddam.

Can't criticize it now.

Youre right, I wouldnt be saying this if Al Gore were in office right now. Because Al Gore woudlnt have led us to a war on shoddy evidence .  It is one thing for Clinton to decry Saddam Hussein's actions (I've already done taht here) or even to point out that his people would benefit from his removal (that they have is questionable). It is WHOLLY another for the president of what is supposedly a country built on democratic values of liberty to lead said country into Iraq, pull out their leader (however corrupt) without widespread support from the UN or other world powers, and institute a "democratic" government there (that will need all of God's good graces to avoid violent failure).

My point is this:  I did not feel threatened by Saddam Hussein before OR after september 11th, because I do not live in a small village in central Iraq.  He didnt have any WMDs... I mean, we've been there for months and havent found a single one!  Saddam brought terror to his people; he did not portray, to us, a clear and present threat.