Humaniacs at it again.

[scratchin dog]

Ok there is a big difference between the purpose of the dept of wildlife its members and their views and that of the hsus. The aforementioned agency and its members are in no way anti hunting. The purpose is to protect animals not for their own sake but for the use of humans and future generations. Whether that is for hunting or taking pretty pictures. In contrast the hsus is a militant org. and its purpose is to protect animals for their own sake because they have "rights". They are against any kind of animal use and seek to fill their pockets with money given by the clueless. So again i dont think that guy was wrong for hunting in another state where it is legal and shouldnt lose his job over it. I do agree 100% that human populations should be controlled.

[Officially Retired]

Ok there is a big difference between the purpose of the dept of wildlife its members and their views and that of the hsus. The aforementioned agency and its members are in no way anti hunting.

Good rebuttal. As a matter of fact, Fish & Game gives out hunting licenses

The purpose is to protect animals not for their own sake but for the use of humans and future generations. Whether that is for hunting or taking pretty pictures.

Good point again.

In contrast the hsus is a militant org. and its purpose is to protect animals for their own sake because they have "rights". They are against any kind of animal use and seek to fill their pockets with money given by the clueless.

Well, I don't want to digress on the fact HSUS is a corrupt, militant organization. We all know that. Nor is the issue of legality even relevant.

For example, I could drawn a parallel to a leader in the Civil Rights Movement going to a KKK meeting in another state. No issues of legality at all, just a tremendously duplicitous act. Can you imagine what would happen to a white Civil Rights Leader's job if he came back from posting pictures of himself and his buds at a KKK meeting in another state?

The issue here really has nothing to do with legality; it has to do with a blatant conflict of interest in a leadership position. However, I think your underscoring the fact that Fish & Game actually controls hunting, so there would be no duplicity if some of its members do hunt--and go out of state to hunt animals they can't kill in their own state.

I do agree 100% that human populations should be controlled.

Yep.

Jack

[TFX]

Jack said "Invalid argument sir. Public official have to be held to a higher standard than the common man"

I think you are confusing the whole higher standard bit of elected officials with "employees". Elected officials are there to represent their constituency. An employee is there to collect a paycheck for services rendered. This guy is an employee.

I also think HSUS and PETA are being confused with Fish & Game, who are very much pro legal hunting. In fact, legal hunting and fishing is what they encourage as well as regulate. If I enjoy hunting and I like to eat doe meat instead of buck meat, I am going to go to Montana where you can get a doe permit, I am not going to illegally hunt does in California. Same deal here with this fellow, and it really is as simple as that. Forget who his employer is. The humaniacs who are against hunting period, are trying to make an issue out of this where there is not one. Apparently they are having a modicum of success, even with the bunch of miscreants we have in our little community here too.

As far as controlling the people population thing, that too fits right in with the humaniac agenda, or the Red China communist agenda, but suit yourselves. There are vast open spaces all over this country, and the world. I do think that too many unfit people are allowed to breed today, which is a whole different topic than outright population control. That borders more on Eugenics, which is another slippery slope when taken too far, but a little of it would be a good thing. Been to WalMart lately? :-o

[scratchin dog]

Good rebuttal. As a matter of fact, Fish & Game gives out hunting licenses





Good point again.





Well, I don't want to digress on the fact HSUS is a corrupt, militant organization. We all know that. Nor is the issue of legality even relevant.

For example, I could drawn a parallel to a leader in the Civil Rights Movement going to a KKK meeting in another state. No issues of legality at all, just a tremendously duplicitous act. Can you imagine what would happen to a white Civil Rights Leader's job if he came back from posting pictures of himself and his buds at a KKK meeting in another state?

The issue here really has nothing to do with legality; it has to do with a blatant conflict of interest in a leadership position. However, I think your underscoring the fact that Fish & Game actually controls hunting, so there would be no duplicity if some of its members do hunt--and go out of state to hunt animals they can't kill in their own state.





Yep.

Jack

Exactly...my point was not about legality just duplicity. The fish and game dept is not an organization but a govt/ state run agency with employees that enforce hunting laws as well as instruct hunting classes and give out licenses. So they dont have to be held to any standard that a public official would.

[Officially Retired]

I think you are confusing the whole higher standard bit of elected officials with "employees". Elected officials are there to represent their constituency. An employee is there to collect a paycheck for services rendered. This guy is an employee.

Good point.

I also think HSUS and PETA are being confused with Fish & Game, who are very much pro legal hunting. In fact, legal hunting and fishing is what they encourage as well as regulate.

I did not confuse the two, I merely used HSUS as an example. Anymore than I confused Civil Liberties with HSUS in my other example.

However, the point of Fish & Game regulating hunting is excellent, and was previously addressed and conceded. Point made, and I agree.

If I enjoy hunting and I like to eat doe meat instead of buck meat, I am going to go to Montana where you can get a doe permit, I am not going to illegally hunt does in California. Same deal here with this fellow, and it really is as simple as that. Forget who his employer is.

Again, point conceded.

The humaniacs who are against hunting period, are trying to make an issue out of this where there is not one. Apparently they are having a modicum of success, even with the bunch of miscreants we have in our little community here too.

Anything for publicity

As far as controlling the people population thing, that too fits right in with the humaniac agenda, or the Red China communist agenda, but suit yourselves.

Well, this is a whole other subject now, that really belongs in the philosophy section of the board, and with which I vehemently disagree. You can put "humaniac," "Red China," or "communist" labels on the very real matter of human overpopulation, but they are merely refusals to look at the most massive problem facing the world to day. It could properly be argued that the pathology of just accepting the status-quo, doing nothing, and instead just labeling any effort to change things as "communist" is without question the worst agenda of all.

There are vast open spaces all over this country, and the world.

Have you ever actually looked at the statistics of how much raw land is left now, compared to two decades ago?

Have you ever actually looked at the statistics as to how fast the human population is growing?

Have you ever actually looked at the statistics of how many species of animal have become extinct, are going extinct, and are predicted to be extinct within the next 10 years?

It is all staggering.

I do think that too many unfit people are allowed to breed today, which is a whole different topic than outright population control. That borders more on Eugenics, which is another slippery slope when taken too far, but a little of it would be a good thing. Been to WalMart lately? :-o

I do agree with this, absolutely.

Jack

[Nash]

I missed understanding of the function of fish and game in my first response. Did not think about that it was an organization set to control legal hunting activities ( not anti ). And as to where in one state there is laws against hunting certain species in another state it is free hunting so to speak, i understand that now. I was thinking more of chasing an endangered ( or close to ) species to hunt just for the sake of it.
TFX. of course to defend property or loved ones it doesn't matter what law is against you.

[TFX]

It seems we have a greater degree of consensus and understanding now, which is good. Here is a follow up article outlining action taken by a couple of decent guys in the state senate to stop this nonsense.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/...rs-mountain-l/

[TFX]

I stand corrected that this guy is an employee. I think this Fish & Game Commission spot he holds is a volunteer position from what I have gathered, similar to my service on a local irrigation district board of directors in the past. However, it appears that the Commission elects their president. Basically, these positions on the commission are bought for a price, somewhere between $50,000-100,000. Don't you love the way government works!?

"California Assembly members, 40 Democrats, and the state’s Democratic lieutenant governor have asked Richards to resign his post on the California Fish and Game Commission, where Richards last month was elected president after a controversial vote. Wayne Pacelle, the leader of animal-rights activism as president and executive director of the Humane Society of the United States, led the resignation brigade charge."

Figures that Pacelle is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong as usual.