Hunters & Farmers beware, PETA are coming.

[Mububban]

Feel free to skip ahead and read the last little bit. The head nutjob of PETA is a Formula One fan?!?!? This tree hugging hippy's second love is MOTORSPORT??? Did anyone else burst into cynical laughter when they read that?

"We are complete press sluts," the founder and president of PETA, Ingrid Newkirk, once told The New Yorker magazine. Newkirk even has plans to turn her death into a media event.

In her will, which is on the PETA.org website, she says: "Upon my death, it is my wish that my body be used in a manner that draws attention to needless animal suffering and exploitation."

Newkirk wants her flesh "used for a human barbecue, to remind the world that the meat of a corpse is all flesh, regardless of whether it comes from a human being or another animal, and that flesh foods are not needed".

Her skin is to be made into leather products "to remind the world that human skin and the skin of other animals is the same and that neither is 'fabric' nor needed".

Her feet are to be turned into umbrella stands "as a reminder of the depravity of killing innocent animals, such as elephants, in order that we might use their body parts for household items and decorations".

Newkirk wants one of her pointing fingers sent to the owner of the Barnum and Bailey Circus to stand as the "Greatest Accusation on Earth" over the way animals have been "kidnapped" from their homes and "forced into involuntary servitude for the sake of cheap entertainment".

Her liver is to be vacuum-packed and sent to France as part of a public appeal to end "the vile practice of force-feeding geese and ducks for foie gras". And on it goes.

But Newkirk also asks that a little piece of her heart be buried at the Hockenheim motor racing track in Germany, preferably near the Ferrari pits used by Michael Schumacher.

Even animal-rights zealots have outside passions and Newkirk's is formula one.

PETA showed pop singer Pink a mulesing video then recorded her saying "Mulesing is cruel etc." The Aussie wool growers then informed her with actual facts of WHY it's done, and she recanted her statement:

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/st ... 84,00.html

"I think with Pink, the situation I feel bad about is that I didn't prepare her for how vicious and how misleading the wool trade group ... can be in going after anybody who speaks out about the cruelty of the wool trade,'' (PETA VP Dan Mathews said)

Vicious and misleading...hmm....

[Stephen Georgiou]

I'll give you all some tips on extremists.

You can always find someone with a radical view.
You will always find people to follow someone who has something to say because it is easier to follow than to lead.
Everybody thinks that their opinion is right.
No one will make a difference without being an extremist.
SO the logical conclusion is that the only way you can stop an extremist is to become one....

P.E.T.A. is run by morons for morons. The same people who follow mainstream sports are their targets as they can be led by the nose anywhere.
Just think about this, next time you pay $3.00 for a bottle of water. We have the best water in the world and yet we spend 100's of millions of dollars on bottled water due to the lies we have been told. Lifestyle is a choice and you must be proactive in maintaining your way of life.
If you are really interested in keeping your way of life, forget about the likes of P.E.T.A. and concentrate on making your interest more interesting than theirs. People will follow you if you offer a good enough alternative to what P.E.T.A. is offering.

Let them collect fools we don't want them anyway.

They can only stop you from hunting if you are prepared to stop.

I for one will continue to hunt and P.ET.A. and it's followers can go to hell!

[RUSS1]

Ichiban, ummmm...... you mean Tasmania, Right?
I Live in Tassie and it sure is banned here.

[Nephew]

I really , really hate saying this ( agreeing with these gimps really sticks in my craw, y'know?), but I want to see an end to mulesing too. It's just not necessary or acceptable in this day and age to put the animal through that kind of suffering for commercial gain. Having said that, these PETA knuckleheads are just foolish. I may not like mulesing, but I would NEVER presume I have the right to deny anyone an income, nor would I presume I know better than someone who has been around sheep all their lives, nor have I any suggestions on how they should run their business ethically. I have my opinions, but who said they are always or even ever the right opinion?
PETA would do well to ask themselves a few questions along these lines I think. Until then they are just fools making spectacles of themselves, as are those that make statements on PETAs behalf. On that note, ask yourself, can you think of a single person (that has any sense or who's opinion matters) you know that would take a blind bit of notice of the likes of PINK? I can't. As long as they keep using loudmouth geese like that as spokespeople I'm content because no matter how much they delude themselves they have a representative of substance, no one cares what PINK thinks!

[Coach]

no one cares what PINK thinks!

I like her ,, but not for her mind

[Nephew]

I like her ,, but not for her mind

I wonder just how many times in history has THAT phrase been used by men?

[Mububban]

YOU may not care what Pink says, but tens ormaybe hundreds of thousands of her fans might care. I couldn't give a rat's what a celebrity's view on a topic is per se, but I do recognise their ability to influence a topic. It's exactly why PETA target celebrities. joe Public saying mulesing is bad - nobody notices. International celebrity says mulesing is bad - thousands and thousands of people hear that, and those of them who have never seen a fly-struck sheep as some of us Aussies have seen, will not understand why it's done.

I'm a city dweller but have always had family friends with sheep properties, I reckon even a lot of Aussies have never set foot on a working farm so what chance does Joe Europe or New York have of being informed? They'll just hear the celeb's statement and that becomes their own opinion.

[Nephew]

Mate, I don't care how many thousands will take any notice of a goose like Pink, it just means there are thousands who have no sense and who's opinions don't matter.
Nah, that's a joke and NOT to be taken seriously.
I can see how these people turning their sights on hunting could be dangerous, but if the general public want to listen to uninformed nonsense talked by fools, they will reap what they sow I reckon. Let 'em keep frothing on with rot, those of us with any sense will just keep taking no notice at all.
I think the real problem here is that lots of folk probably WOULD listen about the horror of mulesing (I'm one of them. I've watched footage of mulesing and I think there HAS to be a better way of avoiding flystrike, but I don't know what that would be. I'm just not arrogant enough to presume I have enough knowledge of the subject to offer unsolicited advice to farmers who know better than I do, or tell them how they should make a living), but not if it comes from idiots like P.E.T.A. Most folk I associate with wouldn't even read anything that had the acronym P.E.T.A in it!


F1 indeed! What a hypocrite this CEO woman is!

[Coach]

I really , really hate saying this ( agreeing with these gimps really sticks in my craw, y'know?), but I want to see an end to mulesing too. It's just not necessary or acceptable in this day and age to put the animal through that kind of suffering for commercial gain.

Got any better ideas to stop maggots eating a sheep away from the bum inward Moreton ?

MOST people have some sense ,, so when someone complains about a practise and the majority get up in arms about it ,, they usually shut up when the REASON for the practise is EXPLAINED , as has been the case when Pink made her statement , so it really worked against PETA in this instance , let them keep on making fools of themselves
Is there any proof or example of where Peta have had hunting banned in Australia ?

[Nephew]

Be fair, Coach. I did say I have no better solution, so therefore I'm not silly enough to try to offer advice to those that know better. That's my point, I may not like something, but what right do I (or anyone) have to tell them to find another way?
I don't like it, BUT, I don't know of any better way, so I don't offer unsolicited advice as PETA have, see?
I don't know of any proof they have had any influence at all in ANY area, but if folk are going to listen to nonsense, then surely if P.E.T.A set their sites on hunting it would be dangerous to us, yeah?

[Chase N. Nocks]

I really , really hate saying this ( agreeing with these gimps really sticks in my craw, y'know?), but I want to see an end to mulesing too. It's just not necessary or acceptable in this day and age to put the animal through that kind of suffering for commercial gain.

Got any better ideas to stop maggots eating a sheep away from the bum inward Moreton ?

MOST people have some sense ,, so when someone complains about a practise and the majority get up in arms about it ,, they usually shut up when the REASON for the practise is EXPLAINED , as has been the case when Pink made her statement , so it really worked against PETA in this instance , let them keep on making fools of themselves
Is there any proof or example of where Peta have had hunting banned in Australia ?

Yep, I got a better idea. User pays. Don't defend crap agricultural practices just because it's cheap and convenient. If you have to do it then do it as humanly and painlessly as possible. Pass the cost on to those that eat meat or wear wool.

The most stupid thing that hunters and farmers can do is to think that everything that PETA have to say and stand for is wrong!

When there are issues of obvoius cruelty, let's not fall into our own blind trap and call every sensible person soft in the brain, or gullible. So yep, I'm against this practice the same way I'm against battery hen and pig farming and sending live animals overseas in putrid conditions. Not going to apologise for my opinion on those issues. That doesn't mean I won't fight PETA tooth and nail on other issues that I think are stupid. But being a hunter does not mean I abide by cruelty. In fact that is one of the key reasons I support free range farms and ranches and the harvesting of game.

Moreton, I would not expect you to apologise or feel guilty for agreeing with someone if they are making sense on a particular issue.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Be fair, Coach. I did say I have no better solution, so therefore I'm not silly enough to try to offer advice to those that know better. That's my point, I may not like something, but what right do I (or anyone) have to tell them to find another way?
I don't like it, BUT, I don't know of any better way, so I don't offer unsolicited advice as PETA have, see?
I don't know of any proof they have had any influence at all in ANY area, but if folk are going to listen to nonsense, then surely if P.E.T.A set their sites on hunting it would be dangerous to us, yeah?

Then we need to be smarter and not just have the typical kneejerk reaction to what they are saying.

Here's a good start the SSAA should send funds to the RSPCA to help prosocute with maximum penalties idiots like those that put arrows in kangaroos etc.

[otis.drum]

Here's a good start the SSAA should send funds to the RSPCA to help prosocute with maximum penalties idiots like those that put arrows in kangaroos etc.

good idea, but opening kangaroo shooting would be better. not that it's in our hands. and yes maximum penalties for idiots that shoot natives..

[longbowinfected]

Better still if SSAA publicly asked members if they saw anything in that area and to come forward. Even better would be to add to the reward being offered by RSPCA. joe public would be in no doubt where SSAA stand. When these things hapen most archery related organisations duck for cover or start the bring in licensing mantra. Why not publicly state that such action was abhorred by each and every one of our law abiding archers?
Probably too simplistic for some.

Kevin

[Chase N. Nocks]

Better still if SSAA publicly asked members if they saw anything in that area and to come forward. Even better would be to add to the reward being offered by RSPCA. joe public would be in no doubt where SSAA stand. When these things hapen most archery related organisations duck for cover or start the bring in licensing mantra. Why not publicly state that such action was abhorred by each and every one of our law abiding archers?
Probably too simplistic for some.

Kevin

Yes, rewards are a great idea. I mean these crettins have got to be hated by someone, I mean they are just t%rds. I wonder if that gutless wonder that punched the kangaroo sensless ever got caught.

[Chase N. Nocks]

Here's a good start the SSAA should send funds to the RSPCA to help prosocute with maximum penalties idiots like those that put arrows in kangaroos etc.

good idea, but opening kangaroo shooting would be better. not that it's in our hands. and yes maximum penalties for idiots that shoot natives..

Otis, I agree. If you can show that the Kangaroo has been used for meat or skin then you should be able to take them except in areas were their numbers are in trouble. Shooting the commercially is a different matter again, not against it but needs to be scrutinized to a higher level simply because of the potentiel numbers involved. While I consider kangaroos a legitimete prey animal I don't really see it as a game animal for the most part. But tucker and a nice vest is plenty good reason.

[Coach]

I really , really hate saying this ( agreeing with these gimps really sticks in my craw, y'know?), but I want to see an end to mulesing too. It's just not necessary or acceptable in this day and age to put the animal through that kind of suffering for commercial gain.

Got any better ideas to stop maggots eating a sheep away from the bum inward Moreton ?

MOST people have some sense ,, so when someone complains about a practise and the majority get up in arms about it ,, they usually shut up when the REASON for the practise is EXPLAINED , as has been the case when Pink made her statement , so it really worked against PETA in this instance , let them keep on making fools of themselves
Is there any proof or example of where Peta have had hunting banned in Australia ?

Yep, I got a better idea. User pays.

Seeing the price of Sheep Meat in supermarkets .. I am thinking we are already paying enough !

So yep, I'm against this practice the same way I'm against battery hen and pig farming

What about taking the nuts out of bulls to make them bigger and fatter ? Are you against that as well ? Do you ever give that a thought when you eat a bit of steak ?

[Coach]

When these things hapen most archery related organisations duck for cover or start the bring in licensing mantra. Why not publicly state that such action was abhorred by each and every one of our law abiding archers?
Probably too simplistic for some.

Kevin

Yeah , too simple for some
All you have to do is look at was happened in the past with some bowhunters ,, ones that are in the public eye ,, they have done wrong , yet others seem to support them . I wont name names ,, but it has happened . We need to be seen outing these people that do the wrong thing rather than making excuses for them

[longbowinfected]

If we were legally allowed to take kangaroo meat in controlled circumstances for private use the demand on meat which is currently of dubious quality and age would be under less pressure. A heap of olk would grab the chance.
Farmers are growing heaps of meat but not much in the way of crop in the places I have been to lately.
Love a roo steak. Roos definitely are good tucker but there is no real challenge in culling them. You could not say it was hunting.

Kevin

[Chase N. Nocks]

Seeing the price of Sheep Meat in supermarkets .. I am thinking we are already paying enough !

Do I want to pay more for anything? No. Am I willing to pay more and consume less of certain items? Yes. It's subjective Coach. What sits easily with you, does not sit well with me. Now if I have to sign a petition, or vote with my dollars on a particular issue then so be it. It's one of the reasons I go to extraordinary lengths not to buy Chinese goods. I'm sick of their garbage. So if it cost more to end Mulesing then so be it.

What about taking the nuts out of bulls to make them bigger and fatter ? Are you against that as well ? Do you ever give that a thought when you eat a bit of steak ?

No, but thanks for pointing it out. It gives me something to consider. How is it done? A similarly cruel method as Mulesing? I don't know. Maybe I would need to support an agenda that is opposed to that as well. After all, I want to keep eating meat. I enjoy eating meat and I have no problem with killing to eat meat.

[Coach]

What about taking the nuts out of bulls to make them bigger and fatter ? Are you against that as well ? Do you ever give that a thought when you eat a bit of steak ?

No, but thanks for pointing it out. It gives me something to consider. How is it done? A similarly cruel method as Mulesing? I don't know. Maybe I would need to support an agenda that is opposed to that as well. After all, I want to keep eating meat. I enjoy eating meat and I have no problem with killing to eat meat.

Its done with a sharp knife Hope I didnt put you off your steak I am having T-Bone tonight , YUM

[Nephew]

I might be wrong here, but I think the point Coach is trying to make is that we have to accept there is going to be some level of "cruelty" (for want of a better word) involved in any large scale meat production.
I also think he may be saying that as awful as mulesing is, there is no viable alternative... yet... and flystrike is WAY, WAY worse.
As I said earlier, I really don't like the idea of mulesing, but I have no alternatives to offer, nor am I informed enough to be able to discuss changes with farmers, so I just keep my distaste of the practice to myself.
Troy, the next bit is only about me, I'm in no way referring to you in any part of it, ok?

I totally admit to emotionally based motives here. When I was a younger man I took the path a lot of reasonably smart, educated young city men do and adopted a "lefty" position to EVERYTHING. Most times I opposed things I had absolutely no idea about, and really had no right to such strident opinions. If I'm really honest I'll admit that like all the other young male lefties, it was affectation, adopted because the kind of girls that attracted me, were attracted to left-wing, protest everything, self proclaimed morally superior young men!! That's right, my self-righteousness was driven by pure, simple, hormonally motivated lust, and nothing else.
When I grew up a bit, cleaned up and stopped having bongs & political discussion for breakfast ( always earnest and serious discussion about how awful Western Society is and how much better it could be...if only people like us were in charge. ) I could see that what I was doing was fake and false, and that so many of the issues that I and the rest of these type of folk get themselves all upset about are way more complex than we were ever willing to admit. I started to notice the hypocrisy of our "beliefs" (were they ever really beliefs, or just affectations adopted?) and the selfishness and self-righteousness of myself and the guys I chose to hang with.
These days I can't stand it when an apparently earnest young, heart-on-sleeve wearing fool who's never been out of some Red Hill smack den tries to defame farmers for supporting their families as best they can, and I admit I oppose them on everything because I don't want them to have any wins at all, y'know? Might have something to do with having a smart daughter who's on the brink of adolescence, and knowing what boys are capable of having once been one. Might be guilt over some of the nonsense I spoke trying to impress girls with just how "alternative" I once was, who knows?
Childish and immature I know, but honest at least, huh?
Apart from that, if P.E.T.A. don't like hunting, fine, don't hunt then, P.E.T.A members! But why do they have to try to rob others of a lawful hobby ( some say lifestyle) they love? I detest "celebrities" and the whole cult of "celebrity" but would never attempt to have them banned, or even bad-mouth them. And not just because I would look like an insane individual, either!! But because many, many people derive pleasure from them (for the life of me I can't understand how, or why) without any real harm, except to their intellect maybe , and why should I ruin that for them? I wish P.E.T.A. members were capable of this type of consideration.
While I have your attention, Troy, how's little Huxley going?? Or is his name Aldous? One or the other, I remember that much! Poor, forgetful old bugger I am!

[Coach]

I might be wrong here, but I think the point Coach is trying to make is that we have to accept there is going to be some level of "cruelty" (for want of a better word) involved in any large scale meat production.
I also think he may be saying that as awful as mulesing is, there is no viable alternative... yet... and flystrike is WAY, WAY worse.

Thats about it Moreton , you hit the nail on the head

Cruel ,, what is it , what does it mean ? Is killing something Cruel ,.. maybe ,, if someone killed me , I would think they were cruel It's all in the way the WORD is used in relation to peoples opinions . IE ,, if I take more than one arrow to kill something ,,I think it was a cruel way to die .. if I only use one arrow , others may still think it was cruel where as I don't think it was cruel . Perhaps just the taking of an animals life is cruel ,, to some .
I hate muelsing as well ,, but it has to be done ! For a start Sheep are an introduced species that shouldnt be here due to our heat and Blowflies here .

[Chase N. Nocks]

Its done with a sharp knife Hope I didnt put you off your steak I am having T-Bone tonight , YUM

Good for you!

Like I said, what is acceptable to you is likely to be not accdeptable to others. Others have a legitimate right to force a change in an industry practice that is cruel, which may cost more for the end user. Interestingly enough, you don't mention a health benifit to the animal in this case rather simple economics.

The chinese fur trade feels very much the same way as you, except possibly in degree. For instance, effective means of killing cost money or take to much time. if the animal is too stupid to die after the first or second blow to the head it matters not, simple being unconscience for the exercise of skinning them is sufficient. You cannot be expected to stand there clubbing something to death because skinning time is awasting. The often living carcass is then tossed onto the cart to perish at its own leisure. Pity the particularly tough ones, they may take hours to die..can't even close their eyes properly cause the lids were torn away with the pelt. All up a wonderful little enterprise where ethics are nicely cocooned within the healing balm of profits. Hopefully you find that (true) tale abhorrant so I won't offer to send you a copy of the DVD.

So my point is : enjoy your steak!. I eat mostly fish and chicken but I love red meat.

The issue was never about the killing, but about cruelty vs $$$$. Is killing a healthy animal cruel? Of course it is! But I thought I had made it clear that I have no problem with killing (as quickly and humanely as possible) for a purpose.

But it boils down to an individual formulea of cruelty/need/purpose that varies from person to person. I'm not going to try, nor have any desire that you stop eating meat. But if eliminating certain cruel practices it costs you $1 extra a kilo, from my point of view..too bad.

[Stickbow Hunter]

Is killing a healthy animal cruel? Of course it is!

Now this comment I can not possibly agree with. How is killing an animal humanely (with no pain or suffering) cruel? This is the type of nonsense the animal libbers want people to believe. Some may not like anyone killing animals but that alone doesn't make it cruel.

Jeff

[Chase N. Nocks]

Is killing a healthy animal cruel? Of course it is!

Now this comment I can not possibly agree with. How is killing an animal humanely (with no pain or suffering) cruel? This is the type of nonsense the animal libbers want people to believe. Some may not like anyone killing animals but that alone doesn't make it cruel.

Jeff

So Jeff, you are saying there is no cruelty whatsoever in taking the life of an aware animal who's primary instinct is to live. Their level of awareness is debatable but that is a more complex issue. But let's say that you knew someone, that for whatever reason bought a new dog everyday, tied it up to the clothes line and shot it between the eyes. For no reason other than pleasure. You would not descibe that as cruel? I'll grant that it is not protracted cruelty.

Remember, I say there are degrees of cruelty, and that I would kill for meat. If I owned a farm I would kill livestock for meat. But if someone says don't you think that is cruel. I'd have to say "well yes, of course" but it is not wanton, pointless or protracted cruelty. And I would have made sure that the animal enjoyed the best existence I could accomodate until that time.

[Chase N. Nocks]

An open reply in kind

Troy, the next bit is only about me, I'm in no way referring to you in any part of it, ok?

I totally admit to emotionally based motives here. When I was a younger man I took the path a lot of reasonably smart, educated young city men do and adopted a "lefty" position to EVERYTHING.

Mate, I have actually become more left wing since I have gotten older and smarter.(Grew up in a very Liberal Party family) I am still very right wing on certain issues though. I only use those terms for convenience because others have put them into certain camps...to me, what I believe just makes sense if I can consistantly marry all or as many of my points of view as possible. For instance I believe in the nationalization of a country's resourses but I believe in compulsory national service and a reserve similar to the Swiss model. The social democracies of the Scandinavian countries appeal to me. I believe that certain strategic industries should never be in the hands of private companies..we have a telecommunications system that was once the envy of even the most advanced western countries but since privatisation probably even Mexico wouldn't want it. I do not believe in bleeding heart welfare states, but still strongly believe in social justice. Very "right wing" on Law and Order..capital punishment, shooting home intruders, tougher and longer sentences and making prisioners work for their keep..all good.

I went to a few young socialist meetings at uni, but quickly got into fierce arguments with the type..I guess like you Mort, left to everything. At the time there was the Timor saga and I got ****** off because everyone seemed to not give a toss about Western Papua...One of the reasons I will never go to Bali, I will never give the Indonesians a single dollar of my money.

Certain things I find hilarious though..the idea that looking after the planet and our children, and children's children ad infinitum is a lefty thing, and the idea (sold to the working man) that the interests of captains of industry (Packer/Murdoch etc) coincide with their prey,sorry consumers, us.

The Australian Alex Carey says it nicely..The 20th century has been characterised by three developments of great political importance. The growth of democracy; the growth of corporate power; and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy. That's not left, that's a simple historical fact. Hitler is simply the benchmark for politics of the modern era.

Most times I opposed things I had absolutely no idea about, and really had no right to such strident opinions. If I'm really honest I'll admit that like all the other young male lefties, it was affectation, adopted because the kind of girls that attracted me, were attracted to left-wing, protest everything, self proclaimed morally superior young men!! That's right, my self-righteousness was driven by pure, simple, hormonally motivated lust, and nothing else.

Mate, I'm well familiar with lust..luckily for me I was just looking for the girls that were giving it away..left, right and centre. I always argued my point of view until I was convinced that I was in error. Fortunately final found the best woman..although she never thought she would marry an atheist. I never undermine her faith but take every opportunity to drag religious organisations through the historical mud.

When I grew up a bit, cleaned up and stopped having bongs & political discussion for breakfast ( always earnest and serious discussion about how awful Western Society is and how much better it could be...if only people like us were in charge. )

I enjoy political discussions anytime, but only with the right type of people. The ones that are genuinely trying to find a right place for their point of view. The ones that treat an exchange of ideas as a dialogue, of the type that Socrates would recognise. I generally work out the type that is only determined to be right fairly quickly..like Robert Heinlein says.."You can teach pigs to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pigs."

I could see that what I was doing was fake and false, and that so many of the issues that I and the rest of these type of folk get themselves all upset about are way more complex than we were ever willing to admit. I started to notice the hypocrisy of our "beliefs" (were they ever really beliefs, or just affectations adopted?) and the selfishness and self-righteousness of myself and the guys I chose to hang with.

So everything was a fascarde? I find that hard to believe Mort. If the issues were complex then dig deeper, there is still plenty to be angry about. Watch "Erin Brockervich" again. Think of what she exposed as a social cochroach..for every one that is seen or exposed there are a hundred more in the cupboard.

These days I can't stand it when an apparently earnest young, heart-on-sleeve wearing fool who's never been out of some Red Hill smack den tries to defame farmers for supporting their families as best they can, and I admit I oppose them on everything because I don't want them to have any wins at all, y'know?

People should be defamed who deserve to be defamed, farmer and protestor alike. No one should be denied supporting their families. Unfortunately the system allows too many people not to support their families. But IF in supporting your family you need to use say DDT because it is cheaper..is that OK? Or if your farming technique or crop is suited to an environment with 1000mm of rainfall and you live where there is 100mm ergo slowly destroying the land with salinity...is that OK? Just like smart arses from the city not knowing enough, I can remember episodes of Landline where it seemed to me that many farmers didn't really know the land, they only knew what they knew. Very resistant to learning..just use the next wonder fertiliser. Farmers in my opinion are not a special species, but it can be a tough life and city people can and do take them for granted.

While I may resent someone who's overall position I'm opposed to having valid points along the way, I will always accept and admit my acceptance of those points. All the better to help them see your way if there has been common ground or points along the way.

Might have something to do with having a smart daughter who's on the brink of adolescence, and knowing what boys are capable of having once been one. Might be guilt over some of the nonsense I spoke trying to impress girls with just how "alternative" I once was, who knows?
Childish and immature I know, but honest at least, huh?

I'd love a daughter, right up until puberty. Then I'd take her to a nunnery. But remember women are not the victims they want you to think they are. Don't feel too guilty.

Apart from that, if P.E.T.A. don't like hunting, fine, don't hunt then, P.E.T.A members! But why do they have to try to rob others of a lawful hobby ( some say lifestyle) they love? I detest "celebrities" and the whole cult of "celebrity" but would never attempt to have them banned, or even bad-mouth them.

If I were famous, I would use my fame to broadcast my intelectual position on issues I felt strongly about..for instance what ever movie or show I was in I would make apoint of drinking water from a tap as LONGBOWINFECTED pointed out earlier. The bottled water explosion is simply stupid beyond discription. I'm against PETA banning hunting in general as well. Stopping wanton slaughter, protecting endangered species, stopping cruel or indiscriminate hunting practices well that would be a different matter.

Of course most celebrities are complete fops and who's opinions I am generally not interested in. Even the celebrities I like. I can actually remember the reason I stopped watching 60 minutes 2 decades past..celebrity interview!! It was the start of the news and current affairs becoming a marketing platform.

While I have your attention, Troy, how's little Huxley going?? Or is his name Aldous? One or the other, I remember that much! Poor, forgetful old bugger I am!

Mate, Huxley is fantastic. I can't wait to get home and see him every day. His personality is developing as well as his language skills..pushing Luisa to give him a bit more Italian, luckily her mother is helping with that. Really love to get out to Coochie soon for a picnic before the weather gets too hot. Sundays are about the only day I have free so if you are interested then please let me know. We'll talk Chomsky and Neitzche, with alittle bit of Bear, Hill and Ishi thrown in for good measure.
I'll leave you with a quote from the most excellent P.J. O'Rourke

Anyway, no drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the source of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed and love of power.

[Nephew]

Wow! I don't have the stamina to give your reply the respect it deserves right now mate. Except to say that the apparently earnest young man I described was me. I used to mouth off without really understanding all the facts. I think we may be similar in that now I have no set position on any issue, I form my opinion as the facts come to hand and then let the cards fall where they may. If the ensuing opinion is right or left wing, it was not an intentional stance, just how I feel about this particular situation, yeah?
I suppose what I was really doing was making a confession that I don't really have any factual basis to my opposition to all P.E.T.A. represents to me, just a visceral reaction...and that's not really good enough, y'know? I was basically saying " No good asking me about this, I can't give an impartial opinion"
My main problem is I never went to uni and have no research skills, maybe if I did I could create a fact base to disguise my prejudice against young lefty blokes in facts, hey?
Ah, lack of formally learnt research skills, the curse of the auto-didact!
I look forward to having your family over , matey, we could bore the hell out of the girls talking late into the night on how we would fix the worlds problems, yeah?
Good place to get Huxley used to the water too, no surf, most days it's dead flat. Biggest waves I ever saw here were ferry wake wash!

[Stickbow Hunter]

So Jeff, you are saying there is no cruelty whatsoever in taking the life of an aware animal who's primary instinct is to live. Their level of awareness is debatable but that is a more complex issue. But let's say that you knew someone, that for whatever reason bought a new dog everyday, tied it up to the clothes line and shot it between the eyes. For no reason other than pleasure. You would not descibe that as cruel?

No, I wouldn't mate.

I would call it disgusting, sick and abhorrent behaviour but to me there would be no act of cruelty involved towards the dog where cruelty is defined variously by the Animal Cruelty Acts in this country as being the infliction of unneccessary and unreasonable pain and/or suffering, or allowing it to occur through neglect. These Acts have no legal sanction agaist the actual killing of an animal so long as the above conditions are met.

Jeff

[jindydiver]

Like I said, what is acceptable to you is likely to be not accdeptable to others. Others have a legitimate right to force a change in an industry practice that is cruel, which may cost more for the end user.

Who defines "cruel" and thus defines the legitimacy of the "right to force a change"?

PETA want us to believe the very act of taking another life is cruel (even though they themselves are responsible for the death of thousands of animals annually) while no-one argues that the act of a lion smothering an antelope by crushing it's throat is cruel. Hunting in it's various forms lays somewhere in between these two and allowing extremists who oppose even our right to a balanced diet to determine where our moral limit is tantamount to giving up.