Bear hunts are back in New Jersey

[Superfly]

Link

Good news!
---------------------

<snip>

The six-day hunt was authorized to thin New Jersey’s swelling black bear population, estimated by state wildlife officials to be as high as 3,200.

<snip>

“I fought against this day for 10 years,” Smith said. “One week of bear hunting, nothing’s going to be solved. Come spring the bears will still be eating our garbage and still be walking through our back yards.”
------
So, you're saying the problem is not the hunting, but the nuisance bears are creating?

<snip>

[HEyHEY]

1. hmmmm

Bastards.
I am not against hunting, I just hate bears being killed.

[Superfly]

2. Wheras I do not hunt bears myself,

I do agree that hunting is a viable means for controlling bear, and other animal, populations.

[MrSandman]

3. West Virginia

has a regular bear season, but the bear population continues to grow. I do not think there is evidence of any species being wiped out by sport hunters, as opposed to commercial hunters(bufffalo, passenger pigeon), bounty hunters(wolf), or poachers(elephants).

There are distinctions.

[MrBenchley]

4. Worth noting

that most New Jerseyans are opposed to this hunt...

[Superfly]

5. Also worth noting

that most New Jerseyans are completely ignorant of the benefits of sport hunting.

[MrBenchley]

7. Not even close to true...

but thanks for showing us how little you actually know about New Jersey...and the actual "sport" of hunting.

[Superfly]

8. I know quite a bit about New Jersey, actually

being an "New Jersey-in-law" by my wife. 90% of the population is urban, and their opinions are based not on actual experience, but what groups like Peta and SORT eschew.

That 90% of the population is so out of touch with the rural Jerseyans, it's not even funny.

[MrBenchley]

13. It doesn't show...

"their opinions are based not on actual experience, but what groups like Peta and SORT eschew."
Too frigging funny...maybe you better look up the word "eschew" before you spout off again. Then again, nobody needs any group whatsoever to tell them that some idiot killing for fun is disgraceful.

"90% of the population is so out of touch with the rural Jerseyans"
And even the rural Jerseyans don't support the hunt...But hey, let's have a handful of asswipes with guns run roughshod over what people want, because those asswipes get their jollies killing and maiming animals.

[Superfly]

20. Ha ha ha

"because those asswipes get their jollies...maiming animals"

See response 19

Oh, yeah. Please substitute "spew" for "eschew". It was early and I hadn't had my coffee yet.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

74. Let me get this straight.

You're now saying that all hunters are asswipes. Thanks for pointing that out to me. All these years I thought I was just an average guy.

[LARED]

10. 100 percent agreed

I live in New Jersey and as you state the majority are clueless about the benefits of hunting.

It is starting to improve as game animals become more of a problem, and some are starting to get it. But the majority still just like to fret about it, and think something other than killing them is effective.

[1a2b3c]

53. Maybe they should just gas them to death like they do in washington

The pesky problem animals that is. Much better than 'sport' hunting, im sure MrB would agree.

[juancarlos]

31. What they think does not matter.

It matters what the wildlife biologists think. It seems that they think bear hunting is a good idea. Leave it to the pros, Bench.

[MrBenchley]

34. Who are you trying to kid?

Most wildlife biologists are opposed to this hunt....

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/cc2000-fa-bears2.html

[juancarlos]

37. I find it hilarious that you post a link

to a group that wants to abolish hunting. May I assume, based on your position and the link you posted, that you believe that the NJ Wildlife division is corrupt?

[MrBenchley]

41. I find it even funnier

that you've yet to have a "fact" of any sort...

And by the way, 11 of the 12 positions that make up the N.J. Division of Fish and Wildlife are held by folks who make their living thanks to the hunting industry...the one that isn't IS a wildlife biologist...and you should have heard the pissing and moaning when it was suggested that a "non-hunter" be appointed..

[RoeBear]

60. Pulling numbers out of her ass.

"we "nuts" embody the thinking of the 98% of the population who opposes the killing of animals for recreation. WE do not represent the minority view; you do."

At least she admits she's nuts. 98% are against sport hunting? Not likely. The largest percentage of people are neutral on hunting, like myself. I've never tried it but I encourage it on my hobby farm. Those fucking deer eat alot of my profits.

FWIW- In California the percentage of people who were against cougar hunting dropped when the big cats started dragging pets and kids out of back yards for snacks.

(enjoy your hamburger for lunch)

[MrBenchley]

61. The only thing being pulled out of anybody's ass

is this pro-hunting crap....

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

63. I believe

I yet to see anything but horseshit from the pro-hunting crowd...which amazingly enough, also seems to be the same crowd trying to peddle John AshKKKroft's revisionist lies about the Second Amendment.

And the flushing sound you hear is the "sport" of hunting going down the crapper....

[RoeBear]

64. You sir are...

...wrong. It's bad enough that you want to push aside Democrats that are in support of the 2nd amendment. To toss aside the votes of hunters, many of which are Democrats, is political suicide.

(enjoy your steak for dinner)

[MrBenchley]

66. Yeah, surrrrrrrrrre....

It's always instructive to see how badly the RKBA crowd wants the Democratic Party to alienate the vast majority of Americans in order to pander to not just any GOP splinter group but the scummiest and most extreme GOP splinter group.

Here in New Jersey an overwhelming majority of Democrats oppose this disgraceful hunt...as do a majority of Republicans. In fact, opposition to this hunt is virtually the only pro-environment thing the GOP in NJ stands for...last time it was proposed, Christie Whitman shut it down, and then waved that shutdown like a flag whenever her "qualifications" for EPA director were discussed.

[RoeBear]

67. Time to put you back on ignore...

...because you obviously have no concept of how the voting process works. Alienate the democratic 2nd amendment supporters; lose a couple a percentage points in the polls. Alienate Democratic hunters and lose an even larger percentage. On top of these losses you galvinize those republicans who are pro gun and pro hunting into going to the polls on election night in huge numbers.

Oops there goes the election, thanks to Benchley.

BTW- do you know any politician going for a national office that shares the same stupid opinion about hunting that you do?

[MrBenchley]

68. Big surprise, roe....

It's what the RKBA crowd does when they run out of the half-hysterical wailing they call "facts."

"you obviously have no concept of how the voting process works."
You mean like trying to attract the huge anti-hunting majority of independents to the Democratic side by opposing an unpopular hunt in a state that just swung Democratic due to other. much more pressing issues? Just so we can pretend that a tiny vocal bunch of right wing extremists might vote Democratic?

"galvinize those republicans who are pro gun and pro hunting"
Hell, in 2000 Heston tried to galvanize them in Michigan into a mob to lynch Al Gore....

[RoeBear]

100. You are the weakest link...

...goodbye.

[MrBenchley]

102. Jeeze, roe...

and yet I'm not the one running to hide....

[Superfly]

107. Yeah, but you are the guy who is

staying in the ring, taking blow after blow, in the hopes that your opponent will tire himself out and quit. Great strategy!

[MrBenchley]

113. Too funny, fly

The RKBA crowd ain't laid a glove on me yet...even with a right wing asswipe like Geoffrey Norman on their side..

[Superfly]

114. Take that metaphor and RUN Bench!

It's all you, buddy!

I think Geoffrey Norman, who is not here to defend himself, would appreicate you calling him a right wing asswipe, without a lick of proof.

[MrBenchley]

119. Why not?

It's not like the RKBA crowd's got anything approaching a facct to discuss.

Want proof? Ask Bill Buckley...he hired the asswipe as a regular columnist.

[MrBenchley]

6. Jeeze, fly....

You sound surprised that this hunt won't solve any problems and is seen as a nuisance....

The hunt looses armed lowlifes into the woods to kill (and wound) bears that are NOT causing any problem...

And one reason for the nuisance bears are causing is that the hunting interests in New Jersey have been fighting some common sense steps...including a state wide law prohibiting the feeding of bears which was only passed recently...and over hunters' objections.

[Superfly]

9. I think you need to re-read what I posted

My "nuisance" comment was a response to the anti-hunting activist who only mentions the nuisances caused by bears (eating garbage, etc.)

You're slipping Bench...

[MrBenchley]

14. And what did that activist say?

He said the hunt is a disgracceful nuisance that will not solve the problem...which is 100% correct.

[Superfly]

19. As if his plan would help.

"Let's traipse through the woods, dressed in camouflage and carrying guns. But instead of killing a bear, we're going to drug it, chop its nuts off, and let it go on living a long, fruitful....er scratch that, fruitless life."

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LARED]

11. Interesting

The hunt looses armed lowlifes into the woods to kill (and wound) bears that are NOT causing any problem...

First off, you have no way of knowing if bears that are not causing problems are taken or not. And a reason bears are expanding into suburban areas is loss of habitat (amoung many reason).

Less bears = more habitat = less problems bears.

feeding of bears which was only passed recently...and over hunters' objections.

Are you sure you don't have feeding and baiting mixed up?

[MrBenchley]

15. Who the hell are you kidding?

"Are you sure you don't have feeding and baiting mixed up?"
Yeah, I am...

[RoeBear]

16. It's a good thing you're not a...

...spokesman for the Democratic Party; nor advise any politician. You're slandering of hunters would be sure to cause immeasureable harm to us.

[MrBenchley]

17. Gee, roe....

Next ask me what I really think about somebody who has to kill an animal to get his jollies....

"You're slandering of hunters would be sure to cause immeasureable harm to us."
Among who? Hunting is a dying sport which should have died long ago...and fewer than 6% of the population participates in it.

[RoeBear]

21. So toss out six percent...

...of the voting public? Smart move- not. FWIW- When I go to union meetings in November here in Michigan half the guys are talking about deer hunting so I'm not really sure where your 6% figure comes from.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

26. Gee, fly....

It's the RKBA crowd that pulls "facts" out of their asses, and then spins like crazy when they're proved to be hooey.

"Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation." Fewer than 6% of Americans hunt today -- roughly half as many as in the early 1970s.
According to the World Conservation Monitoring Centre, 29% of avian species and 54% of mammalian species currently threatened or endangered are still jeopardized by hunting. The U.S. Sportsman's Alliance -- the largest sport hunting lobbying group in America, representing more than 1,000 sportsmen organizations -- has attempted to dismantle the Endangered Species Act and actively promotes polices that destroy wildlife habitat."

http://www.api4animals.org/doc.asp?ID=1277

[Superfly]

33. Nevermind

nt

[Emoto]

48. What a spun question

"Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority of Americans oppose the killing of animals for "sport" or "recreation."

With polls, it is all in how you ask the question. If you had asked people if they support or oppose hunting to manage wildlife populations such as deer and bear to prevent overpopulation that causes them to starve to death and suffer, or become public nuisances or dangers, what do you think the answer would be?

And, while I am at it, here again in this thread, you attempt to portray all hunters as stupid or irresponsible with derrogatory terms. This elitism of yours is the sort of thinking that promotes the loss of freedom and the rise of government power over our daily lives. It goes against the principles that this country was built on, and is most certainly anti-democratic in nature. Those of us who actually are liberals believe that the individual--not the government--should be in control of his destiny, and should be, for the most part, free of government meddling. We liberals believe in the wisdom and judgement of The People.

Totalitarians, on the other hand...

[MrBenchley]

49. Cry us a frigging river, moto...

It's once again appalling how much the RKBA crowd wishes Democrats to ignore the opinion of the majority of Americans to pander to the base desires of one of the scummiest and most extreme special interest groups in American life.

"Those of us who actually are liberals believe..."
That we shouldn't pimp for the NRA and the corrupt gun industry. Clearly the RKBA crowd does so with great enthusiasm...as they attack nearly every liberal anyone's ever heard of.

[MrSandman]

65. From a spun source

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[juancarlos]

32. Bench, don't let facts get in the way of your opinions...

But I usually vote Democrat.

[MrBenchley]

35. Gee, juan...I don't...

But then I actually have facts, and not a gun fetish, on MY side...

[RoeBear]

38. And what are your facts?

Show me something that indicates Democrats don't hunt. I suppose Democrats don't eat meat either. Foolish.

[MrBenchley]

39. My facts are

that the vast majority of New Jerseyans OPPOSE this idiotic hunt....

"Overall, 38% of all outdoor recreationists describe themselves as Democrats, 26% as Republicans and 32% as Independent.
* Interestingly, Downhill Skiers label themselves as 47% Republican vs. 20% Democrats. Hunters label themselves as 38% Republican vs. 19% Democrat. Snowmobilers label themselves as 35% Republican vs. 23% Democrat"

http://www.snowmobile.org/features_outdoorrec.asp

"the hunters I know cringe in horror imagining
the communist DemocRATs in charge"

209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1014506/posts

"The Bush administration is ticking off many traditionally Republican hunters and anglers with its plans to encourage logging and oil and gas drilling in natural areas throughout the Western U.S. Last week, 450 U.S. gun clubs sent a petition to the U.S. Forest Service objecting to plans to remove protections from the Tongass National Forest in southeast Alaska, which contains prime habitat for big game and salmon."

http://www.gristmagazine.com/daily/daily110403.asp

[MrSandman]

42. Do you really think that all hunters

vote for Repubs?

Either:

1) That explains their(Repubs) overwhelming majorities in WV, KY, MI, PA, AR, TN, on, and on...

or
2) It makes a good reason to ban even MORE guns.

and if hunting is for "armed lowlifes"
What happened to the firefights over a downed deer.

[MrBenchley]

43. I think

it's funny as hell to hear the RKBA crowd pissing and moaning about a dying sport and ignoring the vast majority of Americans who do not approve of hunting.

[MrSandman]

47. But, do you really think all hunters

vote Repub?

[MrBenchley]

50. Next ask me

whether I think we should pander to six percent of the population and alienate the rest.

[MrSandman]

54. Then just have DNC

announce that hunters are "armed lowlifes" and guess what happens to the Electoral college.

Which of the sates that I listed do you think would be carried? How would the lost ones be made up for.?

Apart from the electoral question, where would the funding come from for conservation? How will the unchecked explosion of some species be dealt with. WV already has a $44 mil deer problem. In a state that everyone, who is not a felon and can pass a safety test, can kill 7 deer annually(only 2 need be bucks).

[MrBenchley]

55. Too frigging funny...

"How will the unchecked explosion of some species be dealt with. "
As we saw just last week, the hunting industry is farming deer...and disease-ridden ones at that.

"WV already has a $44 mil deer problem."
Boy, that hunting has just been a miracle solution, hasn't it?

[MrSandman]

56. You still didn't answer the question....

PS
actually, the deer damage has come down with greater season limits.

[MrBenchley]

57. Didn't need to...

[MrSandman]

58. Or can't

Which of the sates that I listed do you think would be carried? How would the lost ones be made up for.?

[MrBenchley]

59. Don't need to...

[MrSandman]

69. I am accepting a study by an anti hunting group

which does not demonstrate its findings to be either statistically valid nor reliable, and you don't need to explain how to prevent losing up to 49% of electorate? What, 6%, you say? OK 6% are hunters, but only a majority opposes hunting for "sport or recreation." When I studied statistics, that means only "50% + 1" I will give you the extra 1%.

So if you "Don't need to," explain why, please. If you still don't need to without explanation, I assume further debate, er, monoloque, is pointless.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alwynsw]

22. There you go again

You manage to either directly or indirectly insult many DU'ers with your comments.

Do you consider those of us who hunt in other states to be lowlifes as well?

[Superfly]

24. Nevermind

Purple Monkey Dishwasher

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

117. Armed lowlifes....

Like Wes Clark, Howard Dean, and John Kerry? Have ANY of the Democratic candidates EVER come out and said that they're ANTI-HUNTING? Given Kerry's photo-op a while ago, I don't think so. Please show me I'm wrong, MrBenchley.

[Township75]

12. I wonder if they have out of state hunting licenses in NJ?

Not that I would go...I don't know why anyone except those in NJ would rather hunt bear in NJ when PA is next door and way better.

[Liberal Classic]

18. Support the right...

To arm bears!

:)

[Overkil]

40. So if a legal activity is on the decline we should get rid of it?

Hunting is a dying sport which should have died long ago...and fewer than 6% of the population participates in it.

Imagine if that was the attitude people had about a woman's right to choose. Barely 2% of the female population has exercised that right (according to the CDC)and it's rate has declined 22% in the last 10 yrs. Good thing Bench isn't making the rules.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/987665.asp?0bl=-0

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

52. Only to those with a gun fetish....

[leanings]

70. Good article

From the WSJ, but it's by an editor of National Geographic. I'm not sure if National Geographic is full of right-wing sexually abnormal racists or not, tho. I'm sure we'll be enlightened.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110004386

[Superfly]

71. Official National Geographic Statement on hunting

The Society is a scientific and educational organization. As such, we do not take a stand for or against legal hunting or trapping activities; we simply report on these activities and any consequences when appropriate.

When we report on any topic, we work hard to present it accurately and objectively. With hunting, we are careful to differentiate between modern sport hunters, whose hobby supports conservation efforts, and poachers, who kill animals—often endangered species—illegally.

- Dorothy G. Lerda, Research Correspondence

[MrBenchley]

72. Really...

Do we HAVE TO be inundated with far right wing propaganda EVERY FUCKING DAY from the RKBA crowd?

Here's some of the otehr crap in the line-up of "good articles" from this cesspool today....

"The Patriot Act Under Fire
Hysterics aside, the worst thing about the Act is its name.
By ERIC POSNER and JOHN YOO

Where the Workers Are
There may now be more jobs than before the recession began.
By ELAINE CHAO "

What was the name of this place again? <sarcasm>Next up, Rush Limbaugh on how much fun torturing pets is....</sarcasm>

[Superfly]

73. There you go again.

You must be in the Strawman manufacturing business.

He posted a link to a story written by an editor of the National Geographic Society, to which I posted the NGS official stance on hunting, so that any question of whether or not this is a right-wing piece can be tempered with that statement.

Instead, your response is to fly into a rage, then erect 2 strawmen in an attempt to discredit the original post. That doesn't work, Bench.

[MrBenchley]

75. Too TOO funny, fly.....

The RKBA crowd posts screwloose right wing propaganda...and then pitches a fit if anyone noticces that it IS screwloose right wing propaganda.

"He posted a link to a story written by an editor of the National Geographic Society"
From a far right wing site that has other dimwitted pieces of crap too....which I pointed out.

"your response is to fly into a rage"
No, my response was to point out the smell arising from this "good article" thanks to the cesspool it was fished from.

[Superfly]

77. We're having a regular comedy fest here...

"From a far right wing site that has other dimwitted pieces of crap too....which I pointed out."

- Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original National Geographic editor's article.

"No, my response was to point out the smell arising from this "good article" thanks to the cesspool it was fished from."

- The only thing that stinks around here is your rotten response.

[MrBenchley]

80. Yup, the RKBA crowd's idea of "good"

can always be counted on for laughs...

By the way, wonder why the Right Wing Idiot's Opinion Journal mentioned National Geographic Adventures but NOT Crazy Bill Buckley's Nazional Review (where Norman is a regular contributor)....

http://www.nationalreview.com/norman/norman200310170921.asp

...or Rupert Murdoch's imbecilic Weekly Standard...

"Geoffrey Norman, a resident of Dorset, doesn't like what's going on in Vermont. Civil unions! Act 60! Dr. Dinosaur (low- cost, state-run health insurance for children)! Health insurance laws that prohibit insurance companies from "cherry-picking" customers (i.e., forbids them from denying coverage to Vermonters who might actually need medical treatment). A Socialist Congressman. A governor who is "captive of the teachers." A "soaking wet Republican" (I don't know what the means, but that is what he calls Jim Jeffords). Arrogant judges! "Vermont has become unmoored from its traditions and is drifting, derelict," he moans. Woe! Woe! We're too much like Canada when we should be more like New Hampshire.
This is a big-time put-down. The Weekly Standard describes itself as "America's premier political weekly -- the most talked about, most quoted and most influential magazine in Washington." The editor, William Kristol, was Dan Quayle's chief political advisor, so we know that it's edited with intelligence and wit."


http://www.speakeasy.org/~jessamyn/tbvt/tbvtart3.html

Next up, Michelle Malkin on how much fun it is to step on kittens...

[Superfly]

83. What's the count now?

7 or eight posts and not one response to the article itself from you? :shrug: I hate to say it, but that's par for the course for your posting style.

[MrBenchley]

86. The actual count is

just one article EVER in Nationnal Geographic by this asswipe.

"not one response to the article itself from you?"
Oh, is that all you want, fly? The article is stupid as shit. Funniest part is....
"I don't have a problem with the New Jersey hunt. The many people who do may well possess an ethical refinement that simply escapes me"
Jeeze, considering the ugly company this right wing asswipe keeps...I think anyone who can huddle with scum like Buckley, Murdoch and John Fund without heaving their cookies has the ethical refinement of a Himmler.

[Superfly]

87. Rage, RAGE against the dying of the light....

I think you spit on my keyboard.

[MrBenchley]

89. And laugh your asses off at the RKBA crowd.....

desperately peddling yet another far right wing bozo....

[Superfly]

91. And that is something you have to prove...

"desperately peddling yet another far right wing bozo...."

You trying to get DU involved in a lawsuit?

[MrBenchley]

95. Been there, done that...

Better read the thread again, fly... your imbecile "from the National Geographic" turns out to have written precisely ONE article for them more than three years ago. He's a piece of shit who writes for Murdoch and Bill Buckley.

[Superfly]

97. Instead of going off half-cocked,

I've written NG to help clarify this story. I will post the results of that e-mail exchange when I receive them.

[MrBenchley]

103. Geeze, fly

You mean the Opinion Jounal, Weekly Standard, Forbes AND National Review aren't enough to convince you? You really ARE desperate.

[Superfly]

105. See response 101

nt

[leanings]

78. Damn,

I guess National Geo is full of right wing sexually abnormal racists, too.

"Attention, all good Democrats: Remove National Geographic from the list of publications approved for consumption. That is all."

[MrBenchley]

85. So he's speaking FOR the National Geographic Society here?

Is that the pantload you're trying to peddle?

Funny he's not mentioned among the editors HERE...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/05/0502_020502_awards.html

And when you search for his name on the National Geographic Adventure website you come across only ONE story from more than three years ago, in which his byline is just "Geoffrey Norman"....funny they omitted the title "editor," if he actually held that title, isn't it?

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/adventure/0007/story.html#story_2

But they DO link to a story in Forbes by this bozo...

[MrBenchley]

76. A REALLY good article

Showing what a pantload the "hunters as conservationnists" malarkey really is...

"It is time that the legislature of NJ begins to investigate or review the practices of the Fish and Wildlife Division of the DEP. Their management of "game" species for deliberate increase via the manipulation of public lands should come under public scrutiny. Those who make a study of "wildlife management" have known for years that the Division of Fish and Wildlife is the cause of "human-wildlife conflicts," and with the death of Esty Schwimmer in NY, as aberrant as it was, management for hunting can no longer be tolerated.
A simple perusal of the web pages of the DFW shows that this division is basically operating to promote the killing of wildlife. How possibly can a hunting "season" be sustained year after year unless the wildlife managers manage wild animals into high populations for profit? They manage wildlife for hunting permit fees and excise taxes on hunting weapons. Those monies never leave the Bureau to benefit the general public, but are used to perpetuate hunting and the existence of the Bureau.
At least the excise taxes on alcohol and tobacco go into the General Fund to pay for education and health care. In the case of firearms and other weaponry, excise taxes simply pay for more hunting opportunity to keep up the sale of those products. It’s like using the excise tax from alcohol solely to open more bars to promote more drinking!
Little does the DFW want that fact known to a public that believes they are the guardians of wildlife. In the wake of Esty Schwimmer’s death, to resolve the human-animal conflicts that occur, an urgent investigation is needed to see if wildlife management itself plays a role – if not the major – or even sole role. Simplistically allowing hunting would be to obscure the fact that the management for hunting itself is the problem."

http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/cc2002-fa-bear.html

[Superfly]

79. 6 letters for you....B-I-A-S-E-D

Can you pick a more biased source? These people have an agenda to abolish sport hunting and will say anything to realize that goal. Their OFFICIAL statement:

The mission of C.A.S.H. - Committee to Abolish Sport Hunting - is to accomplish what its name says in the shortest possible time.

-------

The National Geographic, on the other hand, neither supports nor condemns sport hunting, but is quick to point out the difference between helpful and harmful hunting as evidenced by this OFFICIAL statement:

The Society is a scientific and educational organization. As such, we do not take a stand for or against legal hunting or trapping activities; we simply report on these activities and any consequences when appropriate.

When we report on any topic, we work hard to present it accurately and objectively. With hunting, we are careful to differentiate between modern sport hunters, whose hobby supports conservation efforts, and poachers, who kill animals—often endangered species—illegally.

- Dorothy G. Lerda, Research Correspondence

[MrBenchley]

82. Cry me a frigging river.....

You stick with the asswipe frrom Murdoch and Buckley and I'll stand with these folks. The air doesn't stink over here.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

88. Nope...I've been right on target

and your loony from the National Review turns out to be just another right wing piece of shit.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

93. And when you have right wing horseshit as a source

You've got nothing...and the RKBA crowd's got NOTHING.

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

96. Been there, done that...

Why is it the RKBA crowd never has anything but far right wing extremism to back up its gibberish, do you suppose?

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Superfly]

106. Now we see why they call it "blinding rage"

you're so upset you can't even see it!

And, you have yet to prove that anybody is pimping right wing scum.

[leanings]

81. Ah well.

I guess in the end the bear hunt is going on anyway. You and your kind lose again. That's the important thing.

[MrBenchley]

90. Yes, what does right and wrong

or even what the voters want matter, as long as a handful of demented asswipes can kill animals for fun?

By the way, no comment on your National Geographic guy being unmasked as a phony right wing piece of shit?

[Superfly]

99. Unmasked?

That's a hoot. Just because you can't Google the guy's name, you are offering that as proof that he is not employed by National Geographic?

[MrBenchley]

108. Too frigging funny, fly....ONE article three years ago

Sure doesn't seem that National Geographic is proud to claim his company...they didn't mention any title on the ONE and ONLY article they ran by him.

Gee, you don't think, that like so many magazines, NGA lists contributors to a particular issue on their masthead as a "contributing editor"...and that the dishonest pieces of shit who run Opinion Journal are hyping that up to make this numbnutz seem like more than just another tedious right wing crank, do you?

[Superfly]

109. Move your eyes down one more reply...

This is rich!

[Superfly]

101. More on Geoffrey Norman

Just a short cursory search of the internet revealed the following "things" Geoffrey Norman has written about:

Project X-C

So, are all X-C skiers right wing asswipes, bench?
-----
The Swamp Thing

According to somebody here, this guy should be killing everyhting in the swamp instead of finding a place of beauty...
----
Geoffrey Norman, the writer

Wow, that should be the who's-who list of right wing publications, right Bench?
----
Banff Book Festival results

"Two for the Summit: My Daughter, the Mountains and Me" Sure sounds like right wing propaganda, doesn't it?
----

Shit, get out the freaking straight jacket, Geoffrey Norman is a certifiable right wing asswipe loony! (who only manages to be a successful author to publish his radical agenda)

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

111. Too Too Too TOO funny.....

From the skiing thing...

"Vermont resident GEOFFREY NORMAN"

From the Swamp article...

"Marshland maven GEOFFREY NORMAN"

From the Penguin Canada bio...

"He is editor-at-large for Forbes FYI"

Gee, you know what I don't see? "Editor for National Geographic..." Don't see that anywhere.

[Superfly]

112. Just in case you missed it, and it looks like you did...

"Geoffrey Norman has written for many national publications, including Outside, Esquire, Men's Journal, National Geographic, and Sports Illustrated. He is editor-at-large for Forbes FYI, and makes his home in Vermont."

[MrBenchley]

118. Jeeze, now THAT wasn't the claim was it?

Hell, I linked to one of the pinhead's stories for the magazine....which also didn't list the pinhead as any sort of "editor".

"leanings (608 posts)
70. Good article
From the WSJ, but it's by an editor of National Geographic."

"Superfly  (1000+ posts)
73. There you go again.
You must be in the Strawman manufacturing business.
He posted a link to a story written by an editor of the National Geographic Society"

"Superfly  (1000+ posts)
77. We're having a regular comedy fest here...
- Which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the original National Geographic editor's article."

Somebody even posted an official statement from somebody at the National Geographic Society to try and make it seem that the NGS endorsed this fucktard's idiotic ramblings on the subject.

Nothing like a little dishonesty from the RKBA crowd....

By the way, you'll notice the official biography that's used to peddle his adventure books doesn't mention the Weekly Standard, or Opinion Journal, or even National Review, where he writes a regular column....guess even HE knows that those are right wing cesspools that only the really desperate "B-b-b-but Clinton..." crowd take seriously...

[Superfly]

121. Once again, for the people in back

Link

Bottom of the article:

"Mr. Norman is a contributing editor of National Geographic Adventure."

[MrBenchley]

122. And yet there's nothing to back that up.

And even his official biography doesn't make that claim...while avoiding all mention of the places where his work also appears.

Wow, an outright lie by a right wing cesspool like Opinion Journal...who would have thunk it?

[Moderator]

115. Keep it civil

I'd hate to lock this thread - there are at least a dozen good posts here and would like to see debate return to the actual issues.

thanks,

DU Mod

[Superfly]

116. Me too!

"would like to see debate return to the actual issues"

Can we lock this one and start over?

[Name removed]

120. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wickerman]

123. Locking

repost if you want, but keep it civil and no, all are invited