Greenies & Hunting

Message

Axe · #1 Post by **Axe** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:30 pm

Just now picked up the last bit of a conversation on a talk back program

It was to do with the the above political clowns wanting to ban all hunting if they have the power to do so...any one know / heard anything about this???

clinglish · #2 Post by **clinglish** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 2:45 pm

You can usually download the transcripts from talkback programs. Any idea what station Axe?

Axe · #3 Post by **Axe** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:05 pm

1089 (Orange) Clint

Nephew · #4 Post by **Nephew** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:11 pm

I'll check it out and try to find anything in the Greens website, but this sounds like one of the many furphies you hear about Green policy, Axe. Seems a group called "The Exclusive Bretheren" are feeling a little threatened by the Greens, and have been spreading B.S. about them for a while now. If it is true though, who cares? At best the Greens MAY get one or two seats in the Senate, replacing the Dems, but they won't have the balance of power there's too many Independents.They wont have enough power to change a lightbulb, let alone influence legislation

jindydiver · #5 Post by **jindydiver** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:07 pm

Moreton, I am sure he heard it right. The greens want to ban the hunting of animals and fish in Australia, and want to go as far as according "human" rights to animals.

If the Greens ran this country we would not be allowed to wear leather or wool and we would all be vegetarians. Also, feral animals would "fight it out" with our natives until a "natural" balance was achieved.

You can read about some of their ridiculous policies here
http://greenswatch.com/Animal_Policy.aspx

Axe · #6 Post by **Axe** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 5:28 pm

jindydiver wrote:Moreton, I am sure he heard it right. The greens want to ban the hunting of animals and fish in Australia, and want to go as far as according "human" rights to animals.

If the Greens ran this country we would not be allowed to wear leather or wool and we would all be vegetarians. Also, feral animals would "fight it out" with our natives until a "natural" balance was achieved.

You can read about some of their ridiculous policies here
http://greenswatch.com/Animal_Policy.aspx

Thanks for that...
As I said I only heard the last bit, so it was probably a discussion related to their previous idiotic policies, not a new new attack on some misguided attempt to save the world from hunters

Nephew · #7 Post by **Nephew** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:27 pm

Guys, I have no more concurrence with Greens policies than you do, but even if they had a policy of abolishing the moon, who cares? They will NEVER have seats in the House of Reps, and if they somehow did, it would be as one, or in an amazing miracle, two backbenchers. Federally, they will only ever be able to hold a couple of Senate seats, maybe, and would have no possibility of getting even a Private Members Bill through both houses. The Greens are no threat, because they're p%$$ weak. I worry far more about what fundamentalist Christians could do to our society, they DO have real power!
Having said that, I sure back the idea that we should check all candidates policies on hunting, and make sure those that would further restrict or completely ban hunting don't get your vote.

GrahameA · #8 Post by **GrahameA** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:09 pm

Evening All

============

Back in Admin mode.

A request to all. Please choose your words carefully as the last thing I want is people getting upset and saying things that they later regret or touch other peoples deeply held beliefs.

There are reasons why Politics and Religion are volatile topics and all it takes are couple of people passionately on opposite sides and it is an all out flame war.

No one has stepped over any lines I am just getting in early.
============

Now having said that, enjoy your discussion.

archangel · #9 Post by **archangel** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:42 pm

Grahame A wrote:

A request to all. Please choose your words carefully as the last thing I want is people getting upset and saying things that they later regret or touch other peoples deeply held beliefs.

Thank you Grahame - well put. As a committed, born again Christian, I do get somewhat sensitive when I see people use the word "fundamentalist" and treat all Christians as a homogenous group. While there are extremes in every part of our society and I do not identify with the Exclusive Brethren, I do respect their right to hold their own beliefs in matters of faith and interpretation of scripture.

Nephew · #10 Post by **Nephew** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:49 pm

I'm sorry Archangel, I meant no offence.I'm aware that Christianity is not a monolithic structure, but made up of many streams. I deliberately used "fundamentalist" to define the more extreme end of the Christian spectrum. I was in no way referring to anyone here, I was in fact referring to my previous post, The fundamentalists being The Exclusive Brethren, who as far as I can see, deserve no more respect than Muslim Fundamentalists, in fact they occupy the same head-space.
Apart from that, I have no animosity towards anyone on the boards, I was just saying I don't think the Greens have either the numbers, or the connections with the major two parties needed to affect any threat, that's all.

archangel · #11 Post by **archangel** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 7:57 pm

Moreton,

Thanks for the quick response in putting your stance more clearly. No specific offence taken. As Grahame has said, wrongly stated (or misunderstood) views can quickly hijack a thread and end up in a free-for-all.

Nephew · #12 Post by **Nephew** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 8:06 pm

No problem, Bud. Glad we sorted it out amicably

Lochmoy · #13 Post by **Lochmoy** » Mon Nov 12, 2007 9:04 pm

Thank you Grahame,

I am a greenie and if my skin wasn't so thick I too would take offence. But it's okay, I don't as politics esspecially during an election time is a VERY touchy topic.

Just a couple points.

I am pro-hunting of ferals which is what you guys shoot and that's great. Most greens are not animal liberationists.

I am pro logging for wood and paper products if it doesn't mean clear felling forests that are old growth and at the peak habitat diversity.

As I have said in previous posts, it is important not to label people as people may not be as black and white as you may think. For example the Australian Conservation Foundation (a green group) and farmers have many programs designed to sustain farming and repair environmental damage.

Greens are not going to make you stop wearing leather and eat mung beans. I love my meet and my archery stuff has plenty of leather.

Hopefully I have given you some food for thought.

David · #14 Post by **David** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 5:34 am

there was an article in the Land the other week where it stated the Greens have a policy to ban Rodeo's and hunting. Also Live export of animals
which after seeing what some countries do to them and how we have treated some exported animals in the past I almost agree with.
David

GrahameA · #15 Post by **GrahameA** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 6:03 am

Good Morning All

Thanks for the comments. All I ask is for people to have respect for others and what they believe in. And not to start flame wars on this forum.

perry · #16 Post by **perry** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 7:58 pm

We should remember the sustained attack on the shooting sports little Johnny started and carefully consider where our preferances go before we rush off and vote for any party , especially the Greens , Democrats or the federal Nationals] . May I suggest people have a look at the sporting shooters website [ www.australianshooter.com.au ] for more informed comment . regards Perry

Axe · #17 Post by **Axe** » Tue Nov 13, 2007 10:37 pm

If I could just comment that whilst I am down on the Greens for some of their policies eg banning of hunting, I firmly believe as hunters we should have a little Green in us all, I care for the environment and conservation issues...so maybe unknowingly I've been tinted "light" green

Although I hunt and kill I can agree with some of what the animal libers get up in arms about...the fact I care that all animals should be treated humanely and not made to suffer unnecessarily doesn't make me an animal liber, it helps make me a decent human being

I guess what I'm saying is that if fairdinkum one shouldn't completely denounce what the other side has to offer before having sifted through the "mire" in an attempt to find and accept the valuable bits

As for politics and politicians in general...

perry · #18 Post by **perry** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 6:28 am

Could not agree more that as hunters , fishermen and 4 x 4 users or horseriders any outdoorsmen should be very concerned with conservation and the enviroment. When we hide behind statements like "I only hunt feral animals so I'm doing the enviroment a favour " I cringe because as Australians generations before us have stuffed the natural balance and it can not be returned to its former state . Add to this nature is far crueler in that as one species comes to dominate another it too will soon be humbled by nature [ ie rabbits take over outback and eat themselves out of house and home - result - starve to death ]
This alone in my veiw is one concept many greenies do not understand . Too stuck in the Walt Disney veiw where they created the Bambi syndrome by animating animals that feel emotion and think exactly as we do as they skip happily through neverland . Animals do think and feel but as there species does not ours .

Now throw a political adgenda into misguided concepts and they will never get my vote . Labour is not real friedly either , guess I'm just anti any political organisation that threatens my lifestyle . Trouble is about all thats left is single issue party's but there another thread in themselves . regards Perry

buzz · #19 Post by **buzz** » Wed Nov 14, 2007 9:43 pm

It is going to be a fine line for voters to tread in this coming election. I might be generalising, but I think most people on this forum are somewhat pro-Australian natural environment, anti-feral, pro (sustainable) hunting and pro-access to public lands. An amount of the prospective candidates share some of these views, but some seem to have more extreme views in some of these fields.

Mick Smith · #20 Post by **Mick Smith** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 9:48 am

For me this election just boils down to one of two possibilities. As a worker, I'm faced with two choices. The first choice is to be governed by people who want to do things to me and the second choice is to be governed by people who want to do things for me. Mmmmm hard decision.

Mick

Chase N. Nocks · #21 Post by **Chase N. Nocks** » Thu Nov 15, 2007 11:24 am

I'd really like to see democracies striving toward legitimate representation in the form of proportional voting in at least one of our three tiers of government. That means that seats in the House are made up reflecting the percentage of the votes those political groups recieved. 5 % green then 5% of the seats. 10% One Nation etc. This is the proper way, for a democracy to be based on representation and debate. Decision making may be slower but I would be more satisfied that I have a chance to have a real say.

As for the Greenies, well, I think that there are many issues that they champion that are important and worthwhile. I understand why someone might become a vegetarian, maybe they have a problem with the treatment of animals eg battery hen industry. I can go along with that sentiment part way. I'm not a vegetarian but I use a bit more discretion on the meats and eggs I choose, and have cut back a little on the amount of meat that I consume. I still eat meat because I know that if I was in a lifestyle that required me to slaughter farm or game animals for meat, I would.

Protesting about the ill treatment of animals is one thing, protesting that humans are not meat eaters is another. The issues seem to be related but really they are not. Banning hunting is just plain stupid but punishing the cruel should be applauded. Animals are innocent and shold be treated with the respect of the innocent. I say kill as many toads and Indian minor birds as possible, I'll join you. But if someone tells me that they set them on fire or stick fireworks in their mouths then they are beneath contempt and should be reported.

Another eg. where I make a green effort is that I do not buy Australian rice. (I make EVERY effort to purchase ozzie products when I can) Rice requires a ridiculous amount of water to grow and that water could be put to better uses in this country. (If I am wrong on this anyone please correct me.)

Mick. I know where you are coming from. But as a working man from working man stock I see one party I never expected anything from in the first place, and the other party as turning its back, in the last 20 years, on what I expected from them. Regardless of who wins, it will be someone I don't want. Just another bunch of tallyrakes and turntakers. Thank goodness for family, friends, books and archery to keep me sane.

jason · #22 Post by **jason** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 1:17 pm

just a quick step in just remember the shooters party are aligned with the fishing party which last time handed all it's preferences to the liberal party and the power in the senate ( i have still not found who they are giving them to this time)..... the master mind that took guns may now be getting preferences from the very people that fought against him. if you are going to vote for whatever party find out where the preferences go and if in doubt number below the line from 1 - 100 who you want. If you are happy for the parties preferences to go to who they choose so be it but be informed and not just blindly follow someone you think is looking out for you.

Chase N. Nocks · #23 Post by **Chase N. Nocks** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:09 pm

Jason, I could not agree more. I never leave a box unmarked. I hate the idea of preferences, but if we have to have them I will be the one to decide where they go.

I am amazed that we have a system where there is only one debate before a major election. That only two parties are invited to speak is a ripoff. And our useless magazine coverage media that can't give us a descent story or question time leaves us wondering what was the point of tuning in.

Cheers

buzz · #24 Post by **buzz** » Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:50 pm

Chase N. Nocks wrote: I am amazed that we have a system where there is only one debate before a major election. That only two parties are invited to speak is a ripoff. And our useless magazine coverage media that can't give us a descent story or question time leaves us wondering what was the point of tuning in.

Cheers

My gripe is that under our system two parties have developed and people are members of them and have to tow the party line - they can't think or act for themselves and when it comes time for action they are obliged to vote for what the party as a whole wants, or more recently what the party leader or prime minister alone wants! - except in the rare cases of a concience vote. I'd really rather see members actually representing the interests of their consituents and supporting policy and legislation that reflects their own personal values/interests/feelings and those of their electorates. Really, the only way this can now be done is in the Senate where the major parties are close in numbers and the 'independants' hve the ability to swing a decision. The clever advertising here locally is point out that local sitting liberal party mp voted for X, Y and Z unpopular decisions and then saying 'is that what you elected him to do?'