On track for a 2020 ban on sportsfishing?

wrote in message
oups.com...

Wolfgang wrote:
"Cyli" wrote in message
...
On 25 Jul 2006 09:30:58 -0700, wrote:

(snipped)

That said, I agree with you given the time span that timmy has
stipulated
for the success of his venture. If the slavering anti-fishing hordes
invade
the backwoods of northern Curdistan or da Yoop in 2020 the venture
will
lend
new and poignant meaning to the term "blood sport."

That attitude, and basic unpreparedness, is precisely what will win it
for them.

I think he was referring to the backwoods attitudes. Small town WI
and UP is a bit more forceful about what they think their rights are
than the left and right coast urbanites are. Actually, small town
backwoods anywhere is pretty forceful, though sometimes they're quiet
and subtle about it.

Sometimes not so subtle. As I'm sure you remember, we came very close to
a
shooting war over fishing rights in northern Wisconsin as recently as
fifteen years ago. There were numerous violent incidents. It is little
short of a miracle that no one got killed.....this time. The fire is
under
control, for the moment, but it is by no means out. I'll be much
surprised
if it doesn't flare up again in the not too distant future.

Of course, this particular set of circumstances was exacerbated by
virulent
racism but any attempt to ban fishing (in the instant case, it was only
about the perception that one group was getting more than its fair
share......well, ostensibly, anyway) WOULD be met with lethal opposition.

Wolfgang

These people are not releasing their catch because they're real
fishermen (as opposed to wet golfers).

Which people?

They're not in danger of losing
anything.

Well, all of the parties directly involved were in danger of losing their
health, their livelihood, their liberty, their property, their right (or
privilege....or whatever else one cares to call it) to fish, money in the
amount of whatever fines might be levied for various offenses.......and
their lives.

Dumbass.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
ups.com...

As I have already documented, starting with the state parks.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html
http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.


how does "Peta has requested....." translate into anything, Tim?? I mean, I
would like Pennsylvania to give me a 2% cut from the upcoming slot machine
parlors, and could put that request to the Governor, but I doubt anything
will come of it. Twenty loons sending a petition is similar in impact. As
was stated, show us any sign of progress since you first posted this
hypothesis......
Tom

Tom Littleton wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

As I have already documented, starting with the state parks.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html
http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129

Your pal,

TBone
Guilt replaced the creel.


how does "Peta has requested....." translate into anything, Tim?? I mean, I
would like Pennsylvania to give me a 2% cut from the upcoming slot machine
parlors, and could put that request to the Governor, but I doubt anything
will come of it. Twenty loons sending a petition is similar in impact. As
was stated, show us any sign of progress since you first posted this
hypothesis......
Tom

With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was
PETA going to follow. I provided a very clear answer with the links
that showed the strategy in the form of incrementalism, starting with
State Parks. The links are clear regarding this intent, if not
immediate success with the tactic, a claim I did not make. Fact is,
fishing is banned more and more in wetlands and wildlife and waterfowl
sanctuaries etc. It is closed at Hanging Lake in colorado as
'incompatible with the harmony' and, it would not suprise me to see it
banned in city and state parks as the first cut.

Your pal,

Tim

wrote in message
With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was
PETA going to follow. I provided a very clear answer with the links
that showed the strategy in the form of incrementalism, starting with
State Parks. The links are clear regarding this intent, if not
immediate success with the tactic, a claim I did not make. Fact is,
fishing is banned more and more in wetlands and wildlife and waterfowl
sanctuaries etc. It is closed at Hanging Lake in colorado as
'incompatible with the harmony' and, it would not suprise me to see it
banned in city and state parks as the first cut.

Your pal,

Tim

Still, you made the claim that by 2020, we would see a "ban on
sportfishing", and I see little, if any real traction on that front. I don't
fear banning or limiting activities in wildlife refuges as a threat.
Frankly, if one can accept streams regulated for fishing, one should accept
other areas(even streams) regulated towards other aims.
Tom

With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was
PETA going to follow....

that wasn't my question at all ... I asked you:

"how do you see this ban progressing? Given that
many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation
guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think
will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you
name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum"

I didn't mention PETA at all.

cheers

RalphH wrote:
With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was
PETA going to follow....
that wasn't my question at all ... I asked you:
"how do you see this ban progressing? Given that
many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation
guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think
will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you
name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum"
I didn't mention PETA at all.

I misunderstood your question.

The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups
will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and
more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor'
successes then build on that. This would be coincedent with a
population that is ever more urbanized. I believe that the last census,
for example, saw people retreating from wilderness. The city 'loft'
society, if you will. The tournements and pure catch and release
sportsfishing (modern 'trophy' hunters with no biological reason for
harming fish) will be the initial target, and, perhaps, the last
target. I believe it will be impossible, in the foreseeable future
anyway, that these groups can have the same affect on subsistence or
other management (with sound biological reasons) strategies. We must
always question our relationship with animals and chose an ethical
strategy. I've always felt that pure catch and release offered the
least defense of all the options, it will have to be compromised, IMO.

Good yakkin' with ya Ralph.

Halfordian Golfer

On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 14:36:31 -0400, Charlie Choc
wrote:

On 27 Jul 2006 11:22:25 -0700, wrote:


RalphH wrote:

For the sake of amusement - how do you see this ban progressing? Given that
many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation
guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think
will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you
name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum?
[snip]

Hi Ralph,

As I have already documented, starting with the state parks.

http://www.animalrights.net/archives...02/000019.html
http://www.mosportsmen.com/fishing/fishnews2.htm
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_.../headline/1129

You crack me up, Tim. These are your examples of "serious political momentum"?
g


And they're trying to equate banning hunting in State Parks with
banning fishing? Well, there are good reasons for banning hunting in
State Parks, starting with not wanting the buildings accidentally
shot, the campers accidentally shot (or worse, scared by the sound and
running hysterically to the ranger station). Or even too many camping
hunters having guns in their vehicles around. It upsets the kind of
people who like to get back to nature in a citified genteel way.

My state sort of bans hunting in state parks. Until the deer
population gets too large. Then they run bow hunts and / or close
down the park for a week or two and bring in sharp shooters. It
permits it on much other state land, however.
--

r.bc: vixen
Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher, etc..
Often taunted by trout. Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On 27 Jul 2006 18:51:46 -0700, wrote:

RalphH wrote:
With all due respect, the question RalphH asked was what strategy was
PETA going to follow....
that wasn't my question at all ... I asked you:
"how do you see this ban progressing? Given that
many states (and the Province in Canada I live in) have legislation
guaranteeing the right to fish, what political jurisdictions do you think
will be the bell weather locations for the progression of the ban? Can you
name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political momentum"
I didn't mention PETA at all.

I misunderstood your question.

So why not "name one jurisdiction where such a ban has had serious political
momentum"? And how about some 'documentation' that is less than 5 years old.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com

wrote:

The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups
will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and
more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor'
successes then build on that.

You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that
claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have
been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them.


Chuck Vance

Conan The Librarian wrote:
wrote:

The way I see this progressing is that animal rights interest groups
will have steadily increasing public support and will become more and
more organized. They will go after specific bans and various 'minor'
successes then build on that.

You may feel that way, but none of the links you posted support that
claim. If you have any evidence that efforts like those you cited have
been garnering "steadily increasing public support", please do post them.

http://www.peta.org/feat/annualreview05/numbers.asp

Your pal,

TBone
Greed replaced the sport.