Hunting House » Canada Hunting » PETA bashing…
PETA bashing…
Question:
I ran across that both on Drudge and newsmax.com Jim > in deed it has been "aired" > Kristoffer J Buquet > www.ApertureFoto.com > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: > http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
<I’m aware that night hunting is practiced in some European countries. >But I don’t think that the article was aimed at them. It was aimed at
?americans. (I have no problem with night hunting where it is legal, and >there are no safety problems….but hunting DEER in the USA at night is >forbidden just about everywhere I can think of).
Just for the record, hunting deer in the UK at night is illegal Peter Horn Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
I would argue that "our way" to set "them" straight is with calm, reasoned presentation of fact. Your riposte contains quite a bit of emotion, which may tend to indicate to the "uninitiated" that our alleged reputation as "hotheads" is not entirely undeserved…. -jc- You got me. Guilty as charged. Of course, I already admitted that I was "ranting" because I was in a foul mood that day (never a good idea). I also made a vow to NOT post when I’m in a bad mood. I can’t argue with the above post at all. Here’s to the hope that someday soon "our side" will get a fair shake from the media and press. (hehehe…..but I’m not holding my breath) Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
> Why? I know several of people that drive their pickup to their favorite > hunting spot, and sit in the bed as use it as their "blind".
Never hunted deer or turkey that way, but I’ve spent many a fine afternoon dove hunting sitting on the tailgate of a truck. — Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
> Several colleagues and I "routinely" hit standard-size bullseye targets > at 1,000 yards using black-powder-cartridge rifles with "iron sights" — > no scopes allowed. > What size is "standard" to you? For me "standard" would have a 10 ring > inches in diameter. I don’t think I’d be able to even SEE the target > from 1000 yards (unaided).
We shoot the NRA 800-yard target. Basically, the entire target is 5-ft square, with the "black" about 3 ft in diameter (that includes the 8-ring, 9-ring and 10-ring). IIRC, the x-ring is 5 – 6 in. in diameter (1/2 MOA), with the 10-ring around 12 in. I called them "standard" because they are mounted on the same size frame as used in NRA high-power matches. > I know there are long-distance target matches…including 1000 meter > matches. But the targets used for those events (from what I’ve seen) > are significantly larger than that. Even with the larger targets, > anyone who can consistently hit at that range has my admiration. It > takes a large amount of skill, not to mention the ability to judge > wind-speed and its effects on bullet flight. Hell, my grandfather used > to tell me about going to watch competitions like that. He said they > used metal targets (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some still do) > which made it easy for an observer to watch. You heard the shot….and > waited to hear the "clang."
I think nowadays most matches that shoot metallic targets are called "silhouette" matches. I can’t compete in them because my Sharps rifle is too heavy (13 lbs., when the limit is 12 lbs 2 oz). > But that wasn’t the issue. A 1000 yard shot during hunting conditions > is damn near impossible.
Agreed. > Apparently you were absent from English class the day "hyperbole" was > discussed…. > -jc- > Oh, I know all about hyperbole. And this may have been the authors > intent. HOWEVER, the reason you and I would know it _might_ have been > intended as hyperbole is that we know how difficult a shot like that > would be under even the best of conditions. Now, the average reader > (with little to no experience) OTOH would NOT recognize it as such. > They may take it at face value as fact. Catch my drift? (Of course, the > author could also be truly clueless….which is my guess. It’s not the > first time I’ve heard a description like that.)
Given the quality of "journalists" these days, it’s entirely possible that the writer doesn’t know "come here" from "sic ‘em". But from my reading of the article, I judged it to be literally dripping with sarcasm and hyperbole. > The larger issue here is this: The entire scenario painted by the > author is intended to give a certain impression. It’s to show an > animal…totally defenseless, with no IDEA it is n danger….being cut > down by a person with every "unfair" advantage possible (the "infared" > part was a particularly nice touch….high tech all the way).
You have a point there…. But remember what we think killed off the dinosaurs approx. 65 million years ago…. I’d wager they didn’t have a clue, either…. "Totally defenseless"? That’s context-dependent. "Escape" is a defense…. > I don’t care if it was hyperbole. It’s actual effect is definately > intended….give hunters a bad rep.
I try not to ascribe libelous intent to what appears to be deliberate absurdity…. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Mr. Barnes and I had a discussion (ok, more accurately – he corrected > me) about the "shooting from the bed of a pickup" part. At the time, I > didn’t fully realize why that part bothered me. Now I do… Put > yourself in the mind of the uninitiated. Now read that part again. What > do you picture? Somebody pulled off to the side of a road shooting > across a field. This may be legal in a few places, but in alot of > places it’s a big NO-NO. Many people (even among the uninitiated) know > this. So what would be the general impression made to a non- hunter? > We care about hunting. We obey all game laws, even if we think they’re > wrong. We try to be as ethical, and humane as possible. Yet, hunters > are continuously portrayed in every demeaning, stereotypical way > possible. Think of ten movies, or TV shows (fiction) where hunting, or > a hunter is portrayed. Now think how many were fair, even > semi-accurate, or positive. A little depressed? You should be. > Now, wanna flame me about hyperbole again? I’m not your enemy….time > to set THEM straight.
I would argue that "our way" to set "them" straight is with calm, reasoned presentation of fact. Your riposte contains quite a bit of emotion, which may tend to indicate to the "uninitiated" that our alleged reputation as "hotheads" is not entirely undeserved…. -jc- P.s. I’ll be offline for a week (business trip), so if you don’t hear from me that’s the reason. However, if you don’t hear from me for two weeks or more, send a search party to Minnesota. ;-) Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
Several colleagues and I "routinely" hit standard-size bullseye targets at 1,000 yards using black-powder-cartridge rifles with "iron sights" — no scopes allowed. What size is "standard" to you? For me "standard" would have a 10 ring @1.5-2 inches in diameter. The entire target would be maybe 12-18 inches in diameter. I don’t think I’d be able to even SEE the target from 1000 yards (unaided). I know there are long-distance target matches…including 1000 meter matches. But the targets used for those events (from what I’ve seen) are significantly larger than that. Even with the larger targets, anyone who can consistently hit at that range has my admiration. It takes a large amount of skill, not to mention the ability to judge wind-speed and its effects on bullet flight. Hell, my grandfather used to tell me about going to watch competitions like that. He said they used metal targets (I wouldn’t be at all surprised if some still do) which made it easy for an observer to watch. You heard the shot….and waited to hear the "clang." But that wasn’t the issue. A 1000 yard shot during hunting conditions is damn near impossible. Apparently you were absent from English class the day "hyperbole" was discussed…. -jc- Oh, I know all about hyperbole. And this may have been the authors intent. HOWEVER, the reason you and I would know it _might_ have been intended as hyperbole is that we know how difficult a shot like that would be under even the best of conditions. Now, the average reader (with little to no experience) OTOH would NOT recognize it as such. They may take it at face value as fact. Catch my drift? (Of course, the author could also be truly clueless….which is my guess. It’s not the first time I’ve heard a description like that.) The larger issue here is this: The entire scenario painted by the author is intended to give a certain impression. It’s to show an animal…totally defenseless, with no IDEA it is n danger….being cut down by a person with every "unfair" advantage possible (the "infared" part was a particularly nice touch….high tech all the way). I don’t care if it was hyperbole. It’s actual effect is definately intended….give hunters a bad rep. Mr. Barnes and I had a discussion (ok, more accurately – he corrected me) about the "shooting from the bed of a pickup" part. At the time, I didn’t fully realize why that part bothered me. Now I do… Put yourself in the mind of the uninitiated. Now read that part again. What do you picture? Somebody pulled off to the side of a road shooting across a field. This may be legal in a few places, but in alot of places it’s a big NO-NO. Many people (even among the uninitiated) know this. So what would be the general impression made to a non- hunter? We care about hunting. We obey all game laws, even if we think they’re wrong. We try to be as ethical, and humane as possible. Yet, hunters are continuously portrayed in every demeaning, stereotypical way possible. Think of ten movies, or TV shows (fiction) where hunting, or a hunter is portrayed. Now think how many were fair, even semi-accurate, or positive. A little depressed? You should be. Now, wanna flame me about hyperbole again? I’m not your enemy….time to set THEM straight. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Try this on for size, From Sports Illustrated: > <snip> > Some very funny stuff – and then this: >I know, I know-1 hate hunting. > Could see THAT coming a mile away. Why is it that these "types" of > people always feel they have to have a disclaimer? "I disagree with > PETA….but I hate hunting." (read: "See? I’m a sensitive, ‘politically > correct’ guy"). This is akin to some other types: "I’m in favor of > hunting….but I’m pro-gun control" (saw that twit in ‘Field & > Stream’). I guess a pseudospine is better than no spine at all, but > Jeez….have a little conviction! Moving on…… >But sitting in the back of a pickup, > Oops! Off to a bad start already! AFAIK, this is illegal just about > everywhere (with exceptions for disabled hunters). >taking a rifle with an infrared scope and killing >a deer from 1,000 > yards away > This part is LAUGHABLE in so many ways. I know this guy is writing an > "opinion" piece, but he should at LEAST know SOMETHING about the subject > before he farts all over the page. Anyone who can hit a deer from "a > thousand yards" with a normal hunting rifle please speak up…..<sound > of crickets>. There may be _some_ who can hit a large target at 1000 > yd.s with a precision target rifle…..but make a kill shot on an animal > with a kill zone of @ 6 inches?!?! ROFL!!!
Several colleagues and I "routinely" hit standard-size bullseye targets at 1,000 yards using black-powder-cartridge rifles with "iron sights" — no scopes allowed. Apparently you were absent from English class the day "hyperbole" was discussed…. -jc- Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
Hi Bill. Nope, no assumptions made here (although I could have been more clear I suppose). Believe me, I’ve already got enough egg on my face for another part of the post. This article was in a U.S. magazine….which is marketed to people in the U.S. and Canadians(?) I’m sure there may be the occasional SI reader in Europe, but I’d bet they’re rare. I’m aware that night hunting is practiced in some European countries. But I don’t think that the article was aimed at them. It was aimed at americans. (I have no problem with night hunting where it is legal, and there are no safety problems….but hunting DEER in the USA at night is forbidden just about everywhere I can think of). I know, I know….hunting racoons, and coyotes (and a few others I’m sure) at night is legal AND common in many states. But, once again, the author was talking about DEER. Am I the ONLY one who thought his portrayal sounded pretty close to "jack-lighting?" I hope I cleared things up. Sincerely, no offense inended towards any Europeans direct or otherwise. Thanks for keeping me honest Bill. 
Note to self: Never post when you’re in a bad mood. Good enough for me ….i also made a copy of Note to self for me, Bill Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
you assume that everyone here is from the US…hunting at night is common in Europe…so much for spewing garbage…check your facts please. Bill Hi Bill. Nope, no assumptions made here (although I could have been more clear I suppose). Believe me, I’ve already got enough egg on my face for another part of the post. This article was in a U.S. magazine….which is marketed to people in the U.S. and Canadians(?) I’m sure there may be the occasional SI reader in Europe, but I’d bet they’re rare. I’m aware that night hunting is practiced in some European countries. But I don’t think that the article was aimed at them. It was aimed at americans. (I have no problem with night hunting where it is legal, and there are no safety problems….but hunting DEER in the USA at night is forbidden just about everywhere I can think of). I know, I know….hunting racoons, and coyotes (and a few others I’m sure) at night is legal AND common in many states. But, once again, the author was talking about DEER. Am I the ONLY one who thought his portrayal sounded pretty close to "jack-lighting?" I hope I cleared things up. Sincerely, no offense inended towards any Europeans direct or otherwise. Thanks for keeping me honest Bill. :-) Note to self: Never post when you’re in a bad mood. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
Why? I know several of people that drive their pickup to their favorite hunting spot, and sit in the bed as use it as their "blind". Also, when we went to WY antelope hunting, one of the ways we hunted was to drive on the BLM land and spotting the animals. If we saw some that were in range, the hood/cab of the pickup made for about the only gun rest for miles. That is, if the animals would stay put long enough for the dust to clear (man is WY windy and dusty!). <feeling a bit foolish> Yeah, I failed to take the west into account there. Oh well…..I should’ve said in _some_ places. I’ve only ever hunted in one state where it was legal (or, so I was told, hehehe)…not that it really mattered as I would not prefer to do it (just a personal choice. To each his own….so long as it’s legal). Anyway, my mistake. It seems I’M guilty of over-generalisation as well. Mea culpa. He he. My form of shoot-and-release is dove hunting. The average # of shots per bird is usually around 4…. Hell, you must be a crack shot 
I’ve had days where my average was closer to a bird per box…LOL. But enough about my lousy wingshooting…… PS: keep in mind that the author of this article is NOT someone on this newsgroup – it was the author of a piece which appeared in F&S…. I know. I was just in a foul mood (bad day) and took the opportunity to vent at something. Of course, I stuck my foot in my mouth, but hey – at least I had a little fun. BTW, I thought this piece was from SI….don’t recall seeing it in F&S. At least that’s who was credited in the original post. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
Does THAT sound like hunting to anyone here? It sounds more like POACHING to me. I can’t see any reason someone would use an "infared scope" other than to shoot at night….hello!!! That’s illegal! This is nothing new, unfortunately. Virtually every time I hear or read an anti-hunters description of hunting – without fail – they always use the most UNETHICAL scenarios possible. In some cases, they really have no idea what true hunting is (most probably this writers problem). In others, they are _deliberately_ spewing this kind of garbage to give ALL hunters a bad name. you assume that everyone here is from the US…hunting at night is common in Europe…so much for spewing garbage…check your facts please. Bill Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
> >I know, I know-1 hate hunting. > Could see THAT coming a mile away. Why is it that these "types" of > people always feel they have to have a disclaimer? "I disagree with > PETA….but I hate hunting." (read: "See? I’m a sensitive, ‘politically > correct’ guy"). This is akin to some other types: "I’m in favor of > hunting….but I’m pro-gun control" (saw that twit in ‘Field & > Stream’). I guess a pseudospine is better than no spine at all, but > Jeez….have a little conviction! Moving on……
Yep. >But sitting in the back of a pickup, > Oops! Off to a bad start already! AFAIK, this is illegal just about > everywhere (with exceptions for disabled hunters).
Why? I know several of people that drive their pickup to their favorite hunting spot, and sit in the bed as use it as their "blind". Also, when we went to WY antelope hunting, one of the ways we hunted was to drive on the BLM land and spotting the animals. If we saw some that were in range, the hood/cab of the pickup made for about the only gun rest for miles. That is, if the animals would stay put long enough for the dust to clear (man is WY windy and dusty!). >taking a rifle with an infrared scope and killing >a deer from 1,000 > yards away > This part is LAUGHABLE in so many ways. I know this guy is writing an > "opinion" piece, but he should at LEAST know SOMETHING about the subject > before he farts all over the page. Anyone who can hit a deer from "a > thousand yards" with a normal hunting rifle please speak up…..<sound > of crickets>. There may be _some_ who can hit a large target at 1000 > yd.s with a precision target rifle…..but make a kill shot on an animal > with a kill zone of @ 6 inches?!?! ROFL!!!
You’re right here. He obivously knows not of which he speaks. >Tell you what: I will get behind hunting when >hunters come up with a > shoot-and-release >program. > We already have one. It’s called shooting PICTURES (something I enjoy > doing whenever I can). Tell you what, I’ll start buying your POS > Magazine again when your writers get a friggin clue.
He he. My form of shoot-and-release is dove hunting. The average # of shots per bird is usually around 4…. PS: keep in mind that the author of this article is NOT someone on this newsgroup – it was the author of a piece which appeared in F&S…. — + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
>Try this on for size, From Sports Illustrated:
<snip> Some very funny stuff – and then this: >I know, I know-1 hate hunting.
Could see THAT coming a mile away. Why is it that these "types" of people always feel they have to have a disclaimer? "I disagree with PETA….but I hate hunting." (read: "See? I’m a sensitive, ‘politically correct’ guy"). This is akin to some other types: "I’m in favor of hunting….but I’m pro-gun control" (saw that twit in ‘Field & Stream’). I guess a pseudospine is better than no spine at all, but Jeez….have a little conviction! Moving on…… >But sitting in the back of a pickup,
Oops! Off to a bad start already! AFAIK, this is illegal just about everywhere (with exceptions for disabled hunters). >taking a rifle with an infrared scope and killing >a deer from 1,000
yards away This part is LAUGHABLE in so many ways. I know this guy is writing an "opinion" piece, but he should at LEAST know SOMETHING about the subject before he farts all over the page. Anyone who can hit a deer from "a thousand yards" with a normal hunting rifle please speak up…..<sound of crickets>. There may be _some_ who can hit a large target at 1000 yd.s with a precision target rifle…..but make a kill shot on an animal with a kill zone of @ 6 inches?!?! ROFL!!! More to the point, let’s look at the whole thing again (we’ll ASSUME that the shot is possible….<snicker>): >"But sitting in the back of a pickup, taking a >rifle with an infrared
scope and killing a deer >from 1,000 yards away…" Does THAT sound like hunting to anyone here? It sounds more like POACHING to me. I can’t see any reason someone would use an "infared scope" other than to shoot at night….hello!!! That’s illegal! This is nothing new, unfortunately. Virtually every time I hear or read an anti-hunters description of hunting – without fail – they always use the most UNETHICAL scenarios possible. In some cases, they really have no idea what true hunting is (most probably this writers problem). In others, they are _deliberately_ spewing this kind of garbage to give ALL hunters a bad name. It’s time ALL of us start speaking out when this kind of slander is done. POACHING is NOT hunting. And the people MOST opposed to poaching are hunters! >Tell you what: I will get behind hunting when >hunters come up with a
shoot-and-release >program. We already have one. It’s called shooting PICTURES (something I enjoy doing whenever I can). Tell you what, I’ll start buying your POS Magazine again when your writers get a friggin clue. <snip> Just so I can end on a positive note…on this next part, I can totally agree, hehehe: >I’ll tell you one thing. Before I agree to this >whole fish-human
truce, somebody had better >have a long face-to-face with the sharks about >it. I say we send a bunch of PETA members >down right away. >Riley, R., 2001. Scales of Injustice. Sports >Illustrated 95(1):140.
July 2-July 9, 2001. Let him have it boys. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
Try this on for size, From Sports Illustrated: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has new billboards out that claim fishing is cruel. I totally agree. The last time I went, all I caught was a sunburn, three hooks in the back of my thigh and hell from my pals for forgetting the Off. Unfortunately, this is not what PETA means. PETA means fishing is cruel to the fish. Seriously. PETA plans to put up billboards across the U.S. and in Canada that show a Labrador retriever with a hook in his bloody lip. IF YOU WOULDN’T DO IT TO A DOG, the signs say, WHY DO IT TO A FISH? And, of course, the answer is: Because fish do not bring me my slippers. Look, I wailed for the whales. I fumed over fur. I emotionally clubbed myself over the baby seals. But I’ll be damned if I’m going to weep over a walleye. PETA says fish feel pain and that to snag one with a steel hook, drag it along for 50 yards or so and then haul it out of the water so it suffocates is sick. "Why do we throw a Frisbee to some animals and a barbed hook to others?" PETA asks on its website. And, of course, the answer is: Because fish really suck at catching Frisbees. PETA thinks it’s evil to eat fish, too. But why should we stop eating them when they eat each other? Besides, they had their chance to evolve. They could’ve crawled out of the primordial ooze with us, but they didn’t. They decided to stay behind and swim in the water they pee in and go around never blinking. When fish lift their scaly butts past us in the food chain, they can eat us. Until then, pass the tartar sauce. PETA even says catch-and-release is cruel. They say the harm and stress caused by being caught and released is sometimes enough to kill the fish later on. As if the fish go straight into therapy after being caught. Fish: I’m telling you, Doc, I was just minding my own business when I got hauled into the sky, examined by some weird beings and then thrown back! Fish psychiatrist: Lemme guess. A UFO, right? I mean, what’s PETA going to do? You’ll be sitting at the counter in the deli, and suddenly, the PETA police will come running in, shouting, "All right, back away from the tuna melt and nobody gets hurt!" My God, we’re talking about fish here. Fish have a brain the size of a corn kernel. Professor James Rose, a University of Wyoming neuroscientist studied fish for years and determined that they lack a neocortex (parts of which process the brain’s response to pain), much like Cubs fans. Besides, if fish are so smart, why can you catch a fish, throw it back and then, two hours later, catch the same fish? I mean, do you really want to save something dumber than Robert Downey Jr.? Didn’t Jesus fish? He seemed like a pretty sensitive guy. When He zapped up all those fishes for 5,000 people, what do you think He did with them, throw them back? I know, I know-1 hate hunting. But sitting in the back of a pickup, taking a rifle with an infrared scope and killing a deer from 1,000 yards away is not nearly the same thing as standing up to your spleen in icy rushing river water, trying to cast the perfectly tied fly into the perfect eddy to catch a rainbow trout. Is it our fault that the trout falls for it? Tell you what: I will get behind hunting when hunters come up with a shoot-and-release program. Why does PETA stop at fish? Where does PETA stand on the plight of the worm? And plankton? And the 1,000,000 microorganisms that are crushed by your boots every time you go on a nature hike? Have these PETA vegetarians ever gotten close to a broccoli to hear its screams as it’s violently yanked from its birthplace and boiled to death? Fishing is cruel? I always thought fishing was one of the most peaceful things you could do. What are fathers and sons supposed to do together, knit sweaters out of each other’s navel lint? What are we supposed to read, Hemingway’s Old Man and the Parking Lot? I’ll tell you one thing. Before I agree to this whole fish-human truce, somebody had better have a long face-to-face with the sharks about it. I say we send a bunch of PETA members down right away. Riley, R., 2001. Scales of Injustice. Sports Illustrated 95(1):140. July 2-July 9, 2001. Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
love to hear stories such as this. thanks for the link, it has been saved for any future reference. almost as pathetic as our so called "humane society" trying to stop the spring bear hunt where i am. Brian — http://members.home.net/walleyewarrior/ Fishing, hunting, camping, outdoor leisure, sports pages. Get all the latest news, message boards, send greeting cards and more. Your one stop source for all pro sports results and info on your favorite teams. http://members.home.net/greatnorthcountryfixins/ versatile economical delicious, coating batter mix for fish meats burgers onion rings etc > in deed it has been "aired" > Kristoffer J Buquet > www.ApertureFoto.com > Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: > http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
in deed it has been "aired" Kristoffer J Buquet www.ApertureFoto.com Visit the rec.hunting and rec.hunting.dogs FAQ Home Page at: http://sportsmansweb.com/hunting/
Response:
>Don’t know if true or rumor or fiction, but received this in my e-mail >today, interesting… >Opinion / Kerry Dougherty >Thank God! PETA has finally met its match The Virginian-Pilot