Whale Wars on NAT-GEO TV
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
From: bobville
[QUOTE=vader1,Aug 10 2009, 07:08 AM] So lemme get this straight, you are comparing a bunch of people who go hunt out of some primitive boats and kayaks with a spear to a commercial fishing operation with factory ships, radar, sonar and high powered harpoons?
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,950
Likes: 474
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
Lets see, national and state parks are paid for with taxpayer dollars and admission fees. They are not privately funded. Thats the overwhelming majority of the funding coming from non-hunters.
Secondly, groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. You also have people like Ted Turner and all kinds of big buck people spending millions on private conservation efforts. I still think your numbers come out of your butt, or at least the butts of people who head the sportsmans groups whose job it is to slant the issue.
I deal with hunting advocacy groups all the time and the saying holds true, "figures can lie and liars can figure." I am not saying hunters dont put money into habitat, ducks unlimited and pheasants forever spend lots of money. But the "overwhelming majority" is utter horse shit. The sportsman skew the numbers the way they want. Hell in my state we get a crap load of money from hunting licenses and the hunters claim that all going into the Natural Resources budget for "Conservation" when most of it goes to pay game wardens to make sure limits are follwed, and poaching does not take place. That's conservation money according to the hunters.
One of your links is from the Colorado "Sportsmans caucus". Let me fill you in on what that is. Its a group of representatives that like to hunt or represent districts with lots of hunters so they pander to them. The figure of $9 is printed as if it is a fact with no backing on a partisan resolution. It means NOTHING. The "tree hugger" caucus could run a resolution up the flagpole that says "tree huggers contribute $55 dollars for every dollar sportsmen do", and have some doctored figures just like the hunters. If you can not distinguish between unbiased fact and hunting group propaganda, then I guess I see why you write what you do. Interest groups distort the crap out of what they commit, protect, and want out of people. These figures are come up with from "Studies" funded by the groups themselves. Its like getting a study of the health effects of smoking from the tobacco industry. If you put the results of the studies together you will find that Sportsman, birdwatchers, tree huggers and homeless people fund 968% of all conservation. Get it? The hunters will include someone who pays to ride on a bike trail a sportsman, someone who gets a snowmobile license, a sportsman, someone who gets a license on a jet ski or ski boat a sportsman. Everything outdoorsy is considered spent by "sportsman" whether they hunt or not, but the hunters take credit for it even if all of those people are anti hunting vegan hippies. At least try a little to filter out propaganda from fact when your groups send you stuff.
I suppose I can believe the info without question from the "Michigan trappers" or the Colorado "Sportsman's caucus". South Dakota LIVES off pheasant season to the point where they removed the rights of private landowners to keep hunters off their land and you post their info as a source. It says "sportsman" spend $3 million a day. Again, this can be on anything outdoorsy. I could buy a tent and go camping and the hunters want to say that money was spent by a "sportsman" and lump it in with the hunters.
I don't care that people can hunt, fine with me. But hunters pay a fee so somebody is making sure they don't kill everything in sight and its considered some sort of wildlife program. If you just got rid of the hunters (which I am not suggesting) and went without the money, you'd have more wildlife. The ability of hunters to pat themsleves on the back for shooting stuff is a really dumb argument. You like to kill stuff, we get it. But don't pretend like you like to sit and watch nature without wishing you had your gun and your trigger finger getting itchy.
I like to see a bear, a deer, a pheasant, moose or whatever just because I like em, and you because you like to put some lead through em. Fine. But saying that all the heavy lifting is done by hunters backed up with hunting group baloney is nonsense, and if we just left it up to the people who blast everything to make sure its taken care of it would all be in wonderful balance is totally preposterous. But it sounds like a ridiculous notion that you have fooled yourself into.
Good lord, you want people who think whaling is arcane to get off their high horse. Pot calling kettle.
Secondly, groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. You also have people like Ted Turner and all kinds of big buck people spending millions on private conservation efforts. I still think your numbers come out of your butt, or at least the butts of people who head the sportsmans groups whose job it is to slant the issue.
I deal with hunting advocacy groups all the time and the saying holds true, "figures can lie and liars can figure." I am not saying hunters dont put money into habitat, ducks unlimited and pheasants forever spend lots of money. But the "overwhelming majority" is utter horse shit. The sportsman skew the numbers the way they want. Hell in my state we get a crap load of money from hunting licenses and the hunters claim that all going into the Natural Resources budget for "Conservation" when most of it goes to pay game wardens to make sure limits are follwed, and poaching does not take place. That's conservation money according to the hunters.
One of your links is from the Colorado "Sportsmans caucus". Let me fill you in on what that is. Its a group of representatives that like to hunt or represent districts with lots of hunters so they pander to them. The figure of $9 is printed as if it is a fact with no backing on a partisan resolution. It means NOTHING. The "tree hugger" caucus could run a resolution up the flagpole that says "tree huggers contribute $55 dollars for every dollar sportsmen do", and have some doctored figures just like the hunters. If you can not distinguish between unbiased fact and hunting group propaganda, then I guess I see why you write what you do. Interest groups distort the crap out of what they commit, protect, and want out of people. These figures are come up with from "Studies" funded by the groups themselves. Its like getting a study of the health effects of smoking from the tobacco industry. If you put the results of the studies together you will find that Sportsman, birdwatchers, tree huggers and homeless people fund 968% of all conservation. Get it? The hunters will include someone who pays to ride on a bike trail a sportsman, someone who gets a snowmobile license, a sportsman, someone who gets a license on a jet ski or ski boat a sportsman. Everything outdoorsy is considered spent by "sportsman" whether they hunt or not, but the hunters take credit for it even if all of those people are anti hunting vegan hippies. At least try a little to filter out propaganda from fact when your groups send you stuff.
I suppose I can believe the info without question from the "Michigan trappers" or the Colorado "Sportsman's caucus". South Dakota LIVES off pheasant season to the point where they removed the rights of private landowners to keep hunters off their land and you post their info as a source. It says "sportsman" spend $3 million a day. Again, this can be on anything outdoorsy. I could buy a tent and go camping and the hunters want to say that money was spent by a "sportsman" and lump it in with the hunters.
I don't care that people can hunt, fine with me. But hunters pay a fee so somebody is making sure they don't kill everything in sight and its considered some sort of wildlife program. If you just got rid of the hunters (which I am not suggesting) and went without the money, you'd have more wildlife. The ability of hunters to pat themsleves on the back for shooting stuff is a really dumb argument. You like to kill stuff, we get it. But don't pretend like you like to sit and watch nature without wishing you had your gun and your trigger finger getting itchy.
I like to see a bear, a deer, a pheasant, moose or whatever just because I like em, and you because you like to put some lead through em. Fine. But saying that all the heavy lifting is done by hunters backed up with hunting group baloney is nonsense, and if we just left it up to the people who blast everything to make sure its taken care of it would all be in wonderful balance is totally preposterous. But it sounds like a ridiculous notion that you have fooled yourself into.
Good lord, you want people who think whaling is arcane to get off their high horse. Pot calling kettle.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 549
Likes: 0
From: bobville
Originally Posted by vader1,Aug 10 2009, 10:05 AM
Lets see, national and state parks are paid for with taxpayer dollars and admission fees. They are not privately funded. Thats the overwhelming majority of the funding coming from non-hunters.
Secondly, groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. You also have people like Ted Turner and all kinds of big buck people spending millions on private conservation efforts. I still think your numbers come out of your butt, or at least the butts of people who head the sportsmans groups whose job it is to slant the issue.
I deal with hunting advocacy groups all the time and the saying holds true, "figures can lie and liars can figure." I am not saying hunters dont put money into habitat, ducks unlimited and pheasants forever spend lots of money. But the "overwhelming majority" is utter horse shit. The sportsman skew the numbers the way they want. Hell in my state we get a crap load of money from hunting licenses and the hunters claim that all going into the Natural Resources budget for "Conservation" when most of it goes to pay game wardens to make sure limits are follwed, and poaching does not take place. That's conservation money according to the hunters.
One of your links is from the Colorado "Sportsmans caucus". Let me fill you in on what that is. Its a group of representatives that like to hunt or represent districts with lots of hunters so they pander to them. The figure of $9 is printed as if it is a fact with no backing on a partisan resolution. It means NOTHING. The "tree hugger" caucus could run a resolution up the flagpole that says "tree huggers contribute $55 dollars for every dollar sportsmen do", and have some doctored figures just like the hunters. If you can not distinguish between unbiased fact and hunting group propaganda, then I guess I see why you write what you do. Interest groups distort the crap out of what they commit, protect, and want out of people. These figures are come up with from "Studies" funded by the groups themselves. Its like getting a study of the health effects of smoking from the tobacco industry. If you put the results of the studies together you will find that Sportsman, birdwatchers, tree huggers and homeless people fund 968% of all conservation. Get it?
I suppose I can believe the info without question from the "Michigan trappers" or the Colorado "Sportsman's caucus".
I don't care that people can hunt, fine with me. But hunters pay a fee so somebody is making sure they don't kill everything in sight and its considered some sort of wildlife program. If you just got rid of the hunters (which I am not suggesting) and went without the money, you'd have more wildlife. The ability of hunters to pat themsleves on the back for shooting stuff is a really dumb argument. You like to kill stuff, we get it. But don't pretend like you like to sit and watch nature without wishing you had your gun and your trigger finger getting itchy.
I like to see a bear, a deer, a pheasant, moose or whatever just because I like em, and you because you like to put some lead through em. Fine. But saying that all the heavy lifting is done by hunters backed up with hunting group baloney is nonsense, and if we just left it up to the people who blast everything to make sure its taken care of it would all be in wonderful balance is totally preposterous. But it sounds like a ridiculous notion that you have fooled yourself into.
Good lord, you want people who think whaling is arcane to get off their high horse. Pot calling kettle. If you are a responsible hunter, great, but I bet you know a dozen people who are not.
Secondly, groups like the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, and others have annual budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars. You also have people like Ted Turner and all kinds of big buck people spending millions on private conservation efforts. I still think your numbers come out of your butt, or at least the butts of people who head the sportsmans groups whose job it is to slant the issue.
I deal with hunting advocacy groups all the time and the saying holds true, "figures can lie and liars can figure." I am not saying hunters dont put money into habitat, ducks unlimited and pheasants forever spend lots of money. But the "overwhelming majority" is utter horse shit. The sportsman skew the numbers the way they want. Hell in my state we get a crap load of money from hunting licenses and the hunters claim that all going into the Natural Resources budget for "Conservation" when most of it goes to pay game wardens to make sure limits are follwed, and poaching does not take place. That's conservation money according to the hunters.
One of your links is from the Colorado "Sportsmans caucus". Let me fill you in on what that is. Its a group of representatives that like to hunt or represent districts with lots of hunters so they pander to them. The figure of $9 is printed as if it is a fact with no backing on a partisan resolution. It means NOTHING. The "tree hugger" caucus could run a resolution up the flagpole that says "tree huggers contribute $55 dollars for every dollar sportsmen do", and have some doctored figures just like the hunters. If you can not distinguish between unbiased fact and hunting group propaganda, then I guess I see why you write what you do. Interest groups distort the crap out of what they commit, protect, and want out of people. These figures are come up with from "Studies" funded by the groups themselves. Its like getting a study of the health effects of smoking from the tobacco industry. If you put the results of the studies together you will find that Sportsman, birdwatchers, tree huggers and homeless people fund 968% of all conservation. Get it?
I suppose I can believe the info without question from the "Michigan trappers" or the Colorado "Sportsman's caucus".
I don't care that people can hunt, fine with me. But hunters pay a fee so somebody is making sure they don't kill everything in sight and its considered some sort of wildlife program. If you just got rid of the hunters (which I am not suggesting) and went without the money, you'd have more wildlife. The ability of hunters to pat themsleves on the back for shooting stuff is a really dumb argument. You like to kill stuff, we get it. But don't pretend like you like to sit and watch nature without wishing you had your gun and your trigger finger getting itchy.
I like to see a bear, a deer, a pheasant, moose or whatever just because I like em, and you because you like to put some lead through em. Fine. But saying that all the heavy lifting is done by hunters backed up with hunting group baloney is nonsense, and if we just left it up to the people who blast everything to make sure its taken care of it would all be in wonderful balance is totally preposterous. But it sounds like a ridiculous notion that you have fooled yourself into.
Good lord, you want people who think whaling is arcane to get off their high horse. Pot calling kettle. If you are a responsible hunter, great, but I bet you know a dozen people who are not.
I like how you attack facts stated on government websites with ZERO facts of your own to back anything up.
If it's so easy to state that tree huggers fund the majority of conservation, then find me links of such exact statements from government websites. Find me statements that say your tree huggers contribute 10X or 5X more than hunters or whatever you've deluded yourself into thinking.
The DEP and Colorado state vs some random guy on the internet, and you expect to be taken seriously?
Go do some real searching and try to come back with facts in links instead of whining and moaning.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
first off, 
to the original topic. i've heard of the show. bottom line, if people want to take their time and energy and actually use it to protect whales ... more power to them. i'm all about protecting nature. i have way more respect for them than i do for your average PETA nut who wants me to stop eating steak and thinks having a pet dog is evil.
as for the hunting thing, since that now occupies half this thread.
there are some animals that have run out of natural predators or run out of habitat and are simply a nuisance. the more of them we get rid of, the better... sorry, times change, evolution yada yada. deer are my best example. i'm not gonna get all teary eyed when i see one on the highway dead... i'm usually more concerned about the safety of the poor guy/girl who hit the thing. hunters killing deer is fantastic in my book. that being said, yes, there is a big difference between what the japanese whalers do and what your average joe with a shotgun does on his weekends in the country. you can be damn sure that i'm not going to support killing ... say... bald eagles for sport. or whales. or great whites.
the whole argument about who pays for conservation is ridiculous and doesn't warrant a response.
to the original topic. i've heard of the show. bottom line, if people want to take their time and energy and actually use it to protect whales ... more power to them. i'm all about protecting nature. i have way more respect for them than i do for your average PETA nut who wants me to stop eating steak and thinks having a pet dog is evil.
as for the hunting thing, since that now occupies half this thread.
there are some animals that have run out of natural predators or run out of habitat and are simply a nuisance. the more of them we get rid of, the better... sorry, times change, evolution yada yada. deer are my best example. i'm not gonna get all teary eyed when i see one on the highway dead... i'm usually more concerned about the safety of the poor guy/girl who hit the thing. hunters killing deer is fantastic in my book. that being said, yes, there is a big difference between what the japanese whalers do and what your average joe with a shotgun does on his weekends in the country. you can be damn sure that i'm not going to support killing ... say... bald eagles for sport. or whales. or great whites.
the whole argument about who pays for conservation is ridiculous and doesn't warrant a response.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,950
Likes: 474
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
Originally Posted by thebig33tuna,Aug 10 2009, 12:33 PM
there are some animals that have run out of natural predators or run out of habitat and are simply a nuisance. the more of them we get rid of, the better... sorry, times change, evolution yada yada. deer are my best example. i'm not gonna get all teary eyed when i see one on the highway dead... i'm usually more concerned about the safety of the poor guy/girl who hit the thing. hunters killing deer is fantastic in my book. that being said, yes, there is a big difference between what the japanese whalers do and what your average joe with a shotgun does on his weekends in the country. you can be damn sure that i'm not going to support killing ... say... bald eagles for sport. or whales. or great whites.
.
The ones that get out of control are usually because we already killed off their natural predators, but yeah, I get the argument.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 11,950
Likes: 474
From: MAHT-O-MEDI
Originally Posted by thebig33tuna,Aug 10 2009, 12:34 PM
^all caps is not going to get your argument through to this dude.
Yeah I quit. Hey, the Sea Shepards probably have plenty of their own slanted numbers to say whatever they want, but a thinknig person needs to be able to filter that out and then decide if its a concept they still want to support. Its just drinkning the cool aid and blindly accepting what they present you without question and being able to say "oh baloney" that worries me.
Next weeks show is supposed to have a bunch of footage of one being harpooned. Don't know if I can watch it or not.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 32,283
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
dear 565565,
i have found the supporting arguments for your figures. they are based on fact! based on reality! and yet totally misleading.
those numbers are based on
-the billions that sportsmen pay each year in license fees and taxes, which not a single damn one would pay if they weren't legally required to
-all the money they donate to supposed 'conservation' groups supported and run by sportsmen (which is a tiny number compared to the taxes and fees, just a few million)
-all the land owned by sportsmen which they then call 'conserved land' (total in the billions for this one)
sources
http://www.ducks.org/DU_Magazine/DUMagazin...nservation.html
http://www.fws.gov/hunting/whatdo.html
congrats, hunters DO pay for a lot of conservation efforts....
-against their will
or
-for their own use for hunting
go ahead and pat yourselves on the back.
i have found the supporting arguments for your figures. they are based on fact! based on reality! and yet totally misleading.
those numbers are based on
-the billions that sportsmen pay each year in license fees and taxes, which not a single damn one would pay if they weren't legally required to
-all the money they donate to supposed 'conservation' groups supported and run by sportsmen (which is a tiny number compared to the taxes and fees, just a few million)
-all the land owned by sportsmen which they then call 'conserved land' (total in the billions for this one)
sources
http://www.ducks.org/DU_Magazine/DUMagazin...nservation.html
http://www.fws.gov/hunting/whatdo.html
congrats, hunters DO pay for a lot of conservation efforts....
-against their will
or
-for their own use for hunting
go ahead and pat yourselves on the back.