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 ...
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.
An empty ciggerette pack on a string will catch your limit of kittens, no hook necessary.
OK, you got me there. LOL! I just could not believe that enviro wackos would be talking this nonsense.
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.
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!
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.
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?From Chapter 2 of the Source.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.
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?
"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."
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.
Of course I want to see oil drilling in the gulf too.
"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
None. The only joy these pathetic wretches get from life is forcing their misery on the rest of us.
It's good that you continue editing the book as it most likely increases its effectiveness.
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.