Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Environmentalists Irk Angry Anglers [Envirowacko Alert!]
FoxNews Channel ^ | FoxNews/Ap

Posted on 06/22/2002 5:43:29 PM PDT by Salvation

Edited on 04/22/2004 12:34:01 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

MIAMI

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: enviralists; fishing; florida; housecommittee; righttofishact; seantecommittee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last
I am not a fisherman, but these stories are crazy !!!
1 posted on 06/22/2002 5:43:30 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation

Stephanie Boyles, a wildlife biologist at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said, "When they get hooked they feel pain just like a cat or a dog or a duck."

How do you think people feel being pinched by the government everyday for a third of their pay? You're insane if you think anybody but you and your stooges will feel sorry for the fish.

2 posted on 06/22/2002 5:52:30 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
the stories are not crazy...just the environmentalists. They know it all don't they? Well, have them take a look a the lates forest fires in CO and AZ...if the forest service could do their jobs a lot of this damage might not be happening. I wonder how many evironmentalist live in homes framed with wood? How many play or listen to a musical instrument made with wood? How many of them drive cars and SUVs? How many of them enjoy a "wooden" boat on the lake? How many of them enjoy a baseball game where bats are made from wood? How many of them enjoy a park bench of wood? How many of them read from paper which was pulp which came from wood? Hypocrites...all of them. When they truly live with the conveniences of all these things...then let them complain...until then...get a life.
3 posted on 06/22/2002 5:54:45 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter
meant to say when they truly live WITHOUT all these conveniences instead of with. :) sorry.
4 posted on 06/22/2002 5:56:15 PM PDT by cubreporter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I have fished for cats, but never dogs and ducks.

An empty ciggerette pack on a string will catch your limit of kittens, no hook necessary.

5 posted on 06/22/2002 5:57:00 PM PDT by razorback-bert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter
the stories are not crazy...just the environmentalists.

OK, you got me there. LOL! I just could not believe that enviro wackos would be talking this nonsense.

6 posted on 06/22/2002 5:57:27 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter
I understood. You're forgiven. LOL
7 posted on 06/22/2002 5:58:58 PM PDT by Salvation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Stephanie Boyles, a wildlife biologist at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, said, "When they get hooked they feel pain just like a cat or a dog or a duck."

Dear Stephanie,
That's why when we bring them aboard we hit them on the head with a billy and end their suffering!

The big problem here is commercial over fishing, closing these "refuges" to all,then allowing commerical "harvesting" to continue on the remainder creates havoc on the stocks.

8 posted on 06/22/2002 5:59:13 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
I would just love to see a tree-hugging greenie-weinie wander into the state of Arizona. At the first mention of saving trees but not harvesting and clearing slash in the forests the SOB would be turned into parts!

Go tell the homeowners in the Ponderosa Pine Forests of east central Arizona they should let nature be! We have 360,000 acres or 562 square miles of the most beautiful lands in the country that are ash.

I, for one, am so pissed, that if an enviro-whacko showed his/her face to me right now, their health would be endangered. Even Jane D (for Dimwit) Hull, our glorious GUV, said that had we been able to clean up natures messes, damage probably would have been lessened.

GAWD I hate those ba**ards!

9 posted on 06/22/2002 5:59:33 PM PDT by lawdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
fishing opponents say there's no such thing as a right to fish and call the bill bogus.

There's also no such thing as rights FOR fish or any other animals. There is nothing in the Constitution guaranteeing ANYTHING to animals. So there goes their whole argument.

10 posted on 06/22/2002 6:03:06 PM PDT by goodieD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
Finally, the projection of persona, spirit, or rights upon anything other than citizens is little more than a twisted democratic power play. It is a claim of an exclusive franchise to represent an artificial constituency. Maybe those plants do need protection; but who gets to decide by what means, and to what end?

A biocentric perspective projects the spirituality of being into everything. To a deep ecologist, a rock would have a rock’s spirit, a rock’s consciousness, and thus deserves civil rights equivalent to human beings, which they alone purport to represent.

This is a debilitating thing to do to one’s own mind, much less to a republic. To claim to represent the rights of rocks is to project a subjective human impression of a rock’s preferences onto rocks. What if they were wrong? Perhaps the rocks might feel more appreciated by a mineral geologist who would want to make aluminum cans out of them? Did anybody ask the rocks? You guess.

When activists of any stripe demand rights for animals, rocks, or plants, what they are really doing is demanding disproportionate representation of their interests as the self-appointed advocates representing those constituents. Unfortunately, to enforce a right requires the police power of government, the only agent so capable. Government acquires this role because it is assumed a disinterested arbiter of competing claims.

History suggests quite the opposite, which is why limiting the number of enforceable rights is as important to liberty as is constituting them as such.

When government gains the power to confer rights to any constituency, it acquires the means to confer power upon itself as an enforcing agent. There is then no limit to the power to dilute the rights of citizens. Civic respect for unalienable rights of citizens then exists not at all.

From Chapter 2 of the Source.
11 posted on 06/22/2002 6:13:52 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tet68

The big problem here is commercial over fishing, closing these "refuges" to all,then allowing commerical "harvesting" to continue on the remainder creates havoc on the stocks.

I see that you refute PETA's argument. But you support banning costal fishing operations?

12 posted on 06/22/2002 6:18:51 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
This is a direct hit on target.

"When government gains the power to confer rights to any constituency, it acquires the means to confer power upon itself as an enforcing agent. There is then no limit to the power to dilute the rights of citizens. Civic respect for unalienable rights of citizens then exists not at all."


13 posted on 06/22/2002 6:24:45 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
However, sportsmen disagree, and say fishing is an inalienable right and part of the American way.

Fishing opponents say there's no such thing as a right to fish and call the bill bogus.

I agree with the enviro-wackos that there is no such thing as a right to fish. But there is also no provision in the US Constitution that gives Congress/Federal government the power to regulate or mandate no fishing zones. Unless the Federal government is going to move Washington DC into the coasts.

14 posted on 06/22/2002 6:41:52 PM PDT by Frohickey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zon
No,not an outright ban, but I find it somewhat galling when sport fishermen are prevented from fishing while commercial interests continue.

Of course I want to see oil drilling in the gulf too.

15 posted on 06/22/2002 6:45:36 PM PDT by tet68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tet68
I think nobody should be banded from fishing. To be kind, it's irrelevant that commercial fishing operations can fish. It's not the government's place to decide who can or cannot fish. Same for oil drilling.

"Government intervention into peaceful, private activity -- free association wherein any or all parties are free to walk away -- will make things worse rather than better.

"Any government agency that is a value to the people and society could better serve the people by being in the private sector where competition demands maximum performance."56


16 posted on 06/22/2002 6:57:19 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Zon
Thanks.

After writing the book, I can't help but quote it often, as everything seems particularly applicable. The flip side is that one ends up editing it all over, like a painting that is never done.
17 posted on 06/22/2002 7:05:16 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cubreporter
...? How many of them enjoy a "wooden" boat on the lake? How many of them enjoy a baseball game where bats are made from wood? How many of them enjoy a park bench of wood?...

None. The only joy these pathetic wretches get from life is forcing their misery on the rest of us.

18 posted on 06/22/2002 7:08:12 PM PDT by Morgan's Raider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Zon
The problem with open access to the ocean is the Tragedy of the Commons. The only real solution is private property. The book addresses that directly.
19 posted on 06/22/2002 7:10:45 PM PDT by Carry_Okie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie
Wow, you wrote the book -- that's great. I wasn't aware of that. I saved the quote and pulled the authors name from the bottom of Chapter 1. Is it a four part name or did I grab too much? "Mark Edward Vande Pol "

It's good that you continue editing the book as it most likely increases its effectiveness.

20 posted on 06/22/2002 7:28:17 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-40 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson