Pro hunting and fishing action needed now for USA.

[Tom]

Its a cut and paste from Keith Warren, a TV fishing and hunting guy:

The enemy is upon us now!!!! HELP!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please open your eyes and realize that your first ammendment rights are at stake here, now and you better do something about it or you will face the biggest change in your life and in our country that you have ever seen. On the front page of our website there is a notice that I just received today regarding the Supreme Court and a ruling in a case. If the Supreme Court rules in favor to uphold this, all Americans are going to suffer. Outdoorsmen will notice immediately as all magazines, television shows, internet sites and DVD's having to do with hunting will be gone in an instant. The Humane Society of the United States is behind this. You won't even be able to own hunting DVD's as you will be a felon. Think I'm kidding? I know that WC Fields posted something on this forum earlier this evening and it has been looked at and not one single response. What is wrong with people? I can't believe you are willing to allow this to happen and not even take action to stop it. Prove me wrong here. In order to make a difference, you must act and act now. Please log on to the link on the front page of our site and read the brief on the case and then register your displeasure by going to the link on the right side of the page. Next, send this to everyone you know and ask that they take action as well. If you don't then you get what you deserve. Any questions on how I feel on this?
CLICK THIS LINK NOW!!!
http://www.keithwarren.net/courtcase.htm

 

[JoseCuervo]

Tom,


Hunters are now expected to come to the defense of Dogfighters??? Where were you when Michael Vick was being run out of the NFL? You didn't come to the defense of a black man, but now that your hero, Keith Warren, some white guy, scares you, you jump?

 

[TLC]

jose, for being a supposed non racist, you sure like to break things into black and white a lot. why would you even say anything about the color of the peoples skin? why wouldn't you just use their names?

"come to the defense of a black man, but now that your hero, Keith Warren, some white guy,".

 

[Nut]

I saw this at another place and wondered why did people want to wait until this went to the United Sates Sumpreme Court to say anything about what it could possibly be interpreted to cause.

 

[IDHunters]

"There is no allegation that Stevens engaged in dog fighting or any acts of animal cruelty. Nor is it even alleged that the images depicted in his films were illegal when taken. Furthermore, he did not take the images himself, but edited together films taken by others -- films that were recorded in Japan, where the conduct is perfectly legal, and from historic films from the 60s and 70s in rural America."

Sounds just like the Michael Vick case, doesn't it. Definitely a racial issue.

 

[Tom]

The Humane Society is disguising it as just dog fighting, but its way way more, if you read it.

They aim to make it illegal to show pictures in national magazines or on national TV of someone doing something with an animal (like hunting or dog fighting) unless it is legal everywhere the magazine or TV show will be available.

That means, if a bear is protected in Texas, you can't display a bear hunting picture on this forum. If this case succeeds, it will be a great victory for the anti-hunters and significantly change this forum, all hunting forums, all hunting magazines, all hunting TV shows, all hunting supply catalogs and stores, etc.

Get a life, read, etc. Its about anti-hunting in its implications, that's why the Humane Society would push the case so far, they are anti-hunting, look at their home page policy on it.

 

[Mountainborn]

The Humane Society is disguising it as just dog fighting, but its way way more, if you read it.

They aim to make it illegal to show pictures in national magazines or on national TV of someone doing something with an animal (like hunting or dog fighting) unless it is legal everywhere the magazine or TV show will be available.

That means, if a bear is protected in Texas, you can't display a bear hunting picture on this forum. If this case succeeds, it will be a great victory for the anti-hunters and significantly change this forum, all hunting forums, all hunting magazines, all hunting TV shows, all hunting supply catalogs and stores, etc.

Get a life, read, etc. Its about anti-hunting in its implications, that's why the Humane Society would push the case so far, they are anti-hunting, look at their home page policy on it.

I don't think so. This is the exact quote:

a federal law banning "depictions of animal cruelty."

There is nowhere IN LAW that hunting or fishing is considered animal cruelty. The fact that PETA and other wacko tree huggers consider it cruelty has no relevance to the legal system, or any law that might spring from this decision.

I have mixed feelings about this story. It is, in fact, most strictly about dog fighting, not hunting. I disagree with dogfighting, and think it's stupid, pointless, classless, and wrong. But, I am also a proponent of property rights. And when it comes down to it, Animals (non-human ones) are property, they do not have the same rights as humans. Seeing that they are living creatures, we have a responsibility to treat them well, within reason, but they don't have a "right" do any particular treatment. So though I personally disagree with dogfighting, cockfighting, poor treatment of livestock, etc. I don't believe the Government has the right to ban it completely.

In this particular case, I can see the point that this guy has his property rights too, and if it came down to it, I might side with him (given the full details). But because it is revolving around dogfighting, not hunting and fishing as you claim, i do not see a need to get involved at this time.