Animal Advocacy Sample Letters

GhostUser · Feb 22, 2003

This is in response to the post made by Michael ( found at <a href="http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1340" target="_blank">http://www.veggieboards.com/boards/s...&threadid=1340</a> ) encouraging people to use letters posted on a certain pro-AR website to discourage certain animal-related activities. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Fishing is devastating to the environment and cruel to animals.</div>
</div>
 
Absurd. 
I didn't read all of the letters posted on this website, but I did read the ones regarding fishing and deer hunting. It upsets me to read all of those outrageous lies they are encouraging people to write and it saddens me to see Michael promoting them on this forum. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">A study of one lake in Wales revealed that the majority of litter left by visitors was found along the small section of shoreline predominantly used by fishers. Discarded bait containers accounted for nearly half the total trash.</div>
</div>
 
Let me remind you that littering is illegal for everyone, including fishers. Littering IS a problem; fishing itself is NOT. Unfortunately, a lot of people who have picnics litter as well. Does that mean picnics should be banned? <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">I urge you to reverse the decision to allow deer hunting in [location]. Such cruel and senseless slaughter of deer will not solve any of the problems you claim exist.</div>
</div>
 
I don't hunt deer to solve any problems. I hunt for meat to feed myself and my family - not to control animal populations, eliminate diseases, or to reduce human/animal conflicts. It just so happens that regulated hunting and fishing have positive side-effects to the animal populations, their habitat, and the environment as a whole. 
Here are some facts: 
Thanks to conservation efforts, there are more whitetail deer in the US today than there ever have been in recorded history. This is after they were close to extinction a few decades ago. 
Thanks to food plots grown by hunters, many wild animals are much more healthy and happy than they would be otherwise. The deer that feed on these food plots grow bigger and stronger, complete with better immune systems, and the males tend to have bigger racks because of the constant and rich food supplies available to them all year long. Yes, this makes for better meat and 'trophies' for the hunters, but it's a good deal for the deer themselves and other animals as well. It certainly beats having a bunch of skinny, gangly deer running around and dying of starvation all the time, IMO. The food plots created and maintained by hunters help feed non-game species as well. Strangely, I don't see any ARAs spending their own time, effort, or money on growing food plots to feed wild animals like so many hunters do. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">A lethal method would require killing deer indefinitely, and killing increasing number of them to maintain a stable population.</div>
</div>
 
Personally, I don't have a problem with that. No one should, IMO. There are plenty of people who want to hunt them for their own personal benefit and todays hunters will always make sure that there are plenty of healthy deer available for them to hunt and to keep the deer populations healthy. So, both deer and humans win in this situation. I'm sorry if some folks just can't stand the idea of people killing deer for their own personal benefit. They need to get over it, IMO. <div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">There are several immunocontraceptive protocols that have been proven effective in reducing deer populations.</div>
</div>
 
Not only are such programs extremely expensive and impractical, but they have failed to work on free-ranging deer populations. Furthermore, the drugs used to inoculate the deer have not been approved by the FDA. The risks for someone who eats deer treated with these drugs are unknown - such programs could prove to be harmful to deer and dangerous to humans who eat deer meat. 
------ 
Professional wildlife managers and biologists continue to tout the fact that despite decades of research and testing, non-lethal methods of controlling deer are not as effective as hunting. 
At a meeting in Howard County, Maryland, research scientists, biologists, and wildlife managers made it clear that hunting is the most effective way to control deer populations. 
Even if non-lethal techniques were perfected, they would never replace hunting deer, said Paul Peditto, game project manager for the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. Hunting remains, the most cost-effective way of doing business. 
Officials realize there is no trouble-free replacement for bullets or arrows. Robert J. Warren, a wildlife biologist with the University of Georgia, commented about fertility research. 
We do not have any methods that can be used routinely, he said. We are reducing fertility, but most studies have not yet shown a reduction in deer herds themselves. 
Speakers also cited field tests in Maryland and New York, using various methods to prevent deer from conceiving, that all had drawbacks. Dr. Allen Rutberg with the Humane Society of the United States even said that inoculating deer the first time is often not hard to do, but it gets harder and harder as the deer grow more wary. - US Sportsmens Alliance 
------ 
Hunters play an important role in wildlife conservation and have a positive impact on wildlife in general, not just game species. Anyone who questions this fact should contact the US Fish and Wildlife Service and request information about the Federal Aid In Wildlife Restoration Act (also known as the Pittman-Robertson Act) of 1937. Hunters and fishers have contributed over 3 billion dollars to wildlife conservation and hunters voluntarily contribute more money to benefit non-game species than do non-hunters.

GhostUser · Feb 23, 2003

I am sooooooooooo effin' glad this person is gone <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/grin.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

"> 
*does the happy dance*

GhostUser · Jun 20, 2003

He is? That would make sense because omnis are not allowed on this site unless they are in the process of going vegetarian.

Peebs · Jun 21, 2003

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by Infernus I hunt for meat to feed myself and my family.</div>
</div>
 
I think this is actually better than buying factory farmed meat, but I can't say I endorse it because eating meat is not necessary for living a long, enjoyable life.

Tame · Jun 21, 2003

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by RedViking He is? That would make sense because omnis are not allowed on this site unless they are in the process of going vegetarian.</div>
</div>
 
Newbies should really, really read all of the forum rules. Some omnis were "grandfathered" in from other boards, and do not have to be on the way to being veg*n. Some of them are still here. 
FWIW, I don't think Infernus should have been banned, but that is another matter altogether...

Tame · Jun 21, 2003

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by Peebs I think this is actually better than buying factory farmed meat, but I can't say I endorse it because eating meat is not necessary for living a long, enjoyable life.</div>
</div>
 
Just out of curiousity, why does anyone need your endorsement for their dietary choice?

catmorrison · Jun 21, 2003

Beyond food, clothing and shelter nothing is really *necessary.* 
At least as it relates to survival. 
However, I think the true definition of necessary is: 
anything that promotes one's own good and is in accordance with morality. 
Food choices are neither necessary or unnecessary...they are simply choices, IMHO. 
That someone prefers eating *meat* has no more ethical connotation, than someone who doesn't prefer meat, IMHO 
I would even go so far as to say that a hunter who kills a deer, and feeds his family for say, 6 months, may cause less animal deaths than some veg*ns.

Peebs · Jun 21, 2003

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by Tame Just out of curiousity, why does anyone need your endorsement for their dietary choice?</div>
</div>
 
I never said he did. What I meant was that while I think hunting is less cruel than factory farming I still don't condone/support/advise/reccommend it. 
Just out of curiousity, why did you bother asking me such a pointless question?

Tame · Jun 21, 2003

<div class="quote-container">Quote:
<div class="quote-block">Originally posted by Peebs I never said he did. What I meant was that while I think hunting is less cruel than factory farming I still don't condone/support/advise/reccommend it. 
Just out of curiousity, why did you bother asking me such a pointless question?</div>
</div>
 
Poops and giggles. <img alt="" class="inlineimg" src="/images/smilies/wink3.gif" style="border:0px solid;" title="

">

GhostUser · Jul 28, 2003

Infernus... 
I would like to speak to this issue, just from my own bag of opinions. I love it when hunters and fishermen argue that their hobbies serve to maintain wildlife populations better than environmentalists. In a certain way they are right to claim thay are doing the environment a service. They do, after all, preserve their own version of a "wildlife" preserves for their own uses. However, their "wildscapes" are devoid or lacking of plant and animal species that interfere with their target species. While this maintains a certain artificial wildscape of sorts, it does little to preserve the local biodiversity that is so rapidly becoming destroyed. 
Although hunting/fishing is environmentally preferable to other hobbies such as walmart-shopping or car racing for the land usage, it is hardly as benefical for our planet's health as unmanaged or eco-managed wildscapes. Unfortunately, even these areas are becoming invaded by numerous foreign species, brought over (intentionally or unintentionally) by us, that are destrying such rare patches of land as it is. There seems to be no end in sight. 
Some people see farmland as nature. They see crops and cows and think...oh!...nature! I am surrounded by such wastelands. The farmland is used to grow sorgham and corn for the cattle. Hundreds of miles of land holding few species as the fertilizers and pesticides deteriorate the land. The nearby hunting ranches are better, granted. There are more species and a few more animals are able to share this space. But the deer themselves will eat certain species untill they are nonexistent on an area. Certain species that used to feed on deer are eliminated through hunting or because these hunting ranches are smaller than that which could support a predator species. These hunters can pat themselves on the back for allowing a slightly more eco-friendly use of the land, but they should never brag that they are making anything better! They are simply making things worse at a slower rate. 
T oanyone who may feel I am defending the hunters....I am trying to be fair because I find if I entertain the opposing viewpoint, I will learn how to argue my own points more persuasively. In my heart, I can't stand that we are obliterating any trace of life that humans can't see how it would serve our basic needs. But in doing so, we are going to bring about our own demise. Can you too feel it in your bones? Do they see this? Can "they" really continue to believe that a meadow or brushland serves no purpose unless we pave it over and throw a building on top.

cherrybomb · Jan 19, 2005

I hate hunters .Period! We have this station in michigan , happened to be flipping through the channels, and these guys were getting a kick out of how they were gonna kill this poor deer that was just trying to eat. To me hunters do it to be superior to something else, to boost they're ego, because perhaps they arent so MANLY in other areas, just stating my opinion, animal issues really get me all fired up, sorry!

That Alpaca Guy · Jan 19, 2005

Anodekraft, I agree with you 100%! 
However, I do not think Infernus is worth the time.

spud · Jan 19, 2005

wow, some huge gap between posts - 07/28/03 to 01/19/05

Kiz · Jan 19, 2005

lol, I never noticed that.

Animal Advocacy Sample Letters

GhostUser

Registered

GhostUser

Registered

GhostUser

Registered

Peebs

Registered

Tame

Banned

Tame

Banned

catmorrison

Registered

Peebs

Registered

Tame

Banned

GhostUser

Registered

cherrybomb

Registered

That Alpaca Guy

Registered

spud

Registered

Kiz

Registered