Cruel video from China

Pretty morbid if you ask me.Sh*t like this can taint alot of minds,and basically put a bullseye on the everyday outdoors man who enjoys hunting, trapping,Fishing ect.
 
peta

Like all extreme wacky organizations - they should be ignored - they obviously staged the video by paying 3rd world scum to do the skinning - they should be skinned alive - (not the poor well meaning misguided morons that swallow the bullsh!t and support peta.)
 
+1 who couldn't watch much of that video.

It's something an anti-hunter can never understand, the profound sense of connection a hunter/trapper feels with the quarry. Death is part (albeit a very small part) of the hunting experience. But so is deep respect for the animals we hunt and the environments they live in.

Killing without respect, without compassion ... it's beyond sickening. It doesn't matter if it's a staged event or not. The act is the same -- and the punishment that befits it is something I probably shouldn't put in writing...
 
Staged or not, somewhere (and china is not far off) this kind of cr*p goes on. I'm not siding with peta or against it, the fact is, it's absolutely f*cked up. Very similar things go on in some slaughter houses, which is why I have made my resolution to hunt for myself this winter.

I think what the original poster was bringing up was that it was inhumane, not who was posting it for what reasons. Anyways, I'll leave you to your peta rants.
 
H Wally said:
Staged or not, somewhere (and china is not far off) this kind of cr*p goes on. I'm not siding with peta or against it, the fact is, it's absolutely f*cked up. Very similar things go on in some slaughter houses, which is why I have made my resolution to hunt for myself this winter.

I think what the original poster was bringing up was that it was inhumane, not who was posting it for what reasons. Anyways, I'll leave you to your peta rants.
Click to expand...

I agree...you have a different understanding and respect for what your eating/wearing/maybe even smoking when you harvest it yourself, or even simply grow it out of the ground
 
H Wally said:
Staged or not, somewhere (and china is not far off) this kind of cr*p goes on. I'm not siding with peta or against it, the fact is, it's absolutely f*cked up. Very similar things go on in some slaughter houses, which is why I have made my resolution to hunt for myself this winter.

I think what the original poster was bringing up was that it was inhumane, not who was posting it for what reasons. Anyways, I'll leave you to your peta rants.
Click to expand...

Well you had better pick a side Wally or you can screw your future chances of hunting for yourself. The peta rants are coming because peta has a habit of staging (or in this case using staged) footage, attacking school children, and ambushing people to further their cause. Which is: the complete removal of ALL human -- animal interaction including pet ownership.

The fact that they show this footage KNOWING it was staged in a sense allowing the torture of animals in order to "save" them shows how far their moral compass has swung from the average person's.

Yes what was shown is inhumane. But why was it done that way? What benefit? To whom? Only of benefit to the Swiss film crew who filmed this animal "snuff" film.

Greenpeace staged seal torture in Atlantic Canada and AR groups staged kangaroo torture in Australia. Both times trying to present the torture as "standard operating procedure". So pick a side HWally.
 
HOLY SH!T... wow i can not believe that there are people that do that. That seriously made me sick to my stomach. The skinned it alive...that poor, poor animal.
 
i must say that is one of the first videos that almost made me puke. i would never give a single cent to PETA but something should really be done about that.Are humans that crule???this world shocks me everyday
 
Want to do something? Push to have PETA charged:

Here's a few more of the instances of AR snuff films

1964: Film of a seal being skinned alive is used by the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) to vilify Canadian sealers, and is screened on CBC television. Following a public outcry and investigation, the man in the film, Gus Poirier of Prince Edward Island, signs an affidavit declaring that he was "employed by a group of photographers ... to skin a large seal for the film. I solemnly swear before witnesses that I was asked to torment the said seal and not to use a [club], but just to use a knife to carry out this operation, where in normal practice a [club] is used to first kill the seals before skinning them." A Federal Standing Committee castigated CBC "for not enquiring into its accuracy before screening," but the damage had been done.

Campaign tactics of this kind were largely responsible for the introduction in 1972 of the US Marine Mammal Protection Act, which stands to this day. Among the impacts of this draconian and scientifically unjustifiable law was the end to imports of marine mammal products from Canada to the US, and the subsequent devastation of local economies across maritime Canada. (See FCUSA Press Kit Special Feature: Marine Mammal Protection Act)

1972: The Canadian Association for Humane Trapping produces a film entitled They Take So Long to Die. Scenes of animals suffering horribly in inappropriate traps are subsequently aired on CBS television. It is later learned that the animals had actually been caught in the wild and released into a compound to be trapped and filmed at leisure. The film is withdrawn from circulation, but the footage appears in another film, Canada's Shame, produced by the Association for the Protection of Fur-bearing Animals.

Mid-1980s: Greenpeace Australia distributes film of two men mutilating live kangaroos as part of a campaign to ban 'roo products in Europe. Greenpeace only withdraws the film after a court convicts the men for breaking the law, and concludes that they were paid to do so by the film crew.

1988: Footage of dolphins being mangled in the gear of a Panamanian vessel fishing illegally is presented by Earth Island Institute as "tragically representative" of the US fleet, despite the fact that the fleet carries government observers on every fishing trip. The footage leads to drastic regulation. By 1992, the US fleet is reduced by half.

1994: Posing as representatives of an American hunting magazine, a film crew commissioned by IFAW tricks a man into committing acts of extreme cruelty against kangaroos. The film is used by the animal rights group Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!), which claims it shows an "experienced, unlicensed but commercial killer" and portrays standard industry practice. The film crew flee Australia before they can be prosecuted, but the shooter in the film is taken to court. During the trial, it is discovered that he is not a licensed 'roo shooter, does not supply 'roos to the commercial industry, and did not have permission to shoot on the property he was filmed on.(1)

Despite the findings, Viva! continues to use the film, claiming that it shows kangaroos being hung via gashes in their legs "whilst still alive". In fact, movements seen in the tails and other limbs are clearly muscle spasms.(4)

Mid-1990s: In 1996, video footage of a brutal dolphin slaughter is used in a campaign to raise money and generate public support for embargoes against Venezuela's two exports, oil and tunafish. As they market the video, various groups claim the film "proves" that 40,000 dolphins are killed annually in a country where dolphin kills are illegal. No proof exists except the film. When the uncut film footage is finally discovered, it becomes obvious that the film was staged. The filmmaking crew had represented themselves to the fishermen involved as scientists from the local university, saying they needed to kill a dolphin for research and that they would take total responsibility. "Act natural!" yells the cameraman to the fishermen. The filmmakers supply the knife used to inhumanely butcher the animal while they direct the action. "More blood! Get me more blood!" yells the cameraman.

The Venezuelan government charged the filmmakers with fraud and treason (since the film was part of an orchestrated attack on key Venezuelan exports), but the filmmakers fled the country. They have never been caught to face the charges.
Click to expand...
 
1998 - 2002: In a case filed by the Canadian government against Jason Penney and other Newfoundland sealers for acts of alleged cruelty, the court refuses to admit as evidence a gory videotape produced by IFAW. The footage lasts 23 minutes, and contains no fewer than 77 cuts, suggesting some changes could have been made, says the judge, who also calls the cameraman "a sophisticated con man". (See Court Finds IFAW Video "Evidence" Inadmissible FCUSA press release, Apr. 21, 1999) The Crown appeals and Penney is subsequently convicted by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, but in 2002 the Court of Appeal overturns the conviction after finding that the trial judge admitted the video as evidence without considering the credibility of the witnesses.

In its ruling, the court writes: "Evidence establishing that the video has not been altered or changed is a precondition to its admission as evidence. Current technology is such that it is not difficult for a competent person to alter visual evidence. In this case, the video was, for a lengthy period, in the possession of a company that edits videos."(3)

1999: Members of the organization New South Wales Animal Liberation break into a a licensed possum abattoir in Tasmania and install hidden fiber optic cameras. The resulting video shows possums being stunned with a captive bolt pistol and then bled. The footage is run on a national current affairs program, with the allegation that it shows extreme cruelty. This claim is based on movements seen after bleeding has begun, which the activists say indicate the animals are still alive. In fact, the movements are merely muscle spasms. The footage is subsequently reviewed by the Tasmanian Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, a non-government body made up of veterinary representatives from government, tertiary education, private practices and animal welfare organizations. The AWAC concludes there is no evidence of any breech of the detailed Animal Welfare Code of Practice for the operation, that the video shows a standard well-conducted slaughter operation, and that the operators appear to take "inordinate care" in all procedures.(4)

2001: Jesse Power, a vegan student at the Ontario College of Art and Design, enlists two other young men to film the brutal torture and killing of a house cat. Acts committed on video include hanging the cat by a noose, then cutting its throat while stabbing it, and finally slitting its chest open. At trial, Power's lawyer argues that the project was conceived as an "artistic protest" against meat-eating.
 
sjemac said:
Well you had better pick a side Wally or you can screw your future chances of hunting for yourself. The peta rants are coming because peta has a habit of staging (or in this case using staged) footage, attacking school children, and ambushing people to further their cause. Which is: the complete removal of ALL human -- animal interaction including pet ownership.

The fact that they show this footage KNOWING it was staged in a sense allowing the torture of animals in order to "save" them shows how far their moral compass has swung from the average person's.

Yes what was shown is inhumane. But why was it done that way? What benefit? To whom? Only of benefit to the Swiss film crew who filmed this animal "snuff" film.

Greenpeace staged seal torture in Atlantic Canada and AR groups staged kangaroo torture in Australia. Both times trying to present the torture as "standard operating procedure". So pick a side HWally.
Click to expand...

On a side note - this is turning into a peta debate, so off topics may be a better section.

Anyways,

I don't see picking either side as a good choice. It would be like picking either Stalin or Hitler as a leader, both sucked balls.

Don't get me wrong, I disagree with a lot of what PETA does - the only thing I really agree with is that wonton animal cruelty and "inhumane" should be stopped. At the same time I come across in the hunting community, as elsewhere in the firearms community, a self destroying habit of alienating ourselves from the community and actively forcing people to side against us.

By this I mean that on the one hand you have PETA, a radically extremist group that would like nothing more than to free all the fuzzies of the world from evil human opression (yes, your dog that kicks you out of the bed at night is definitely being opressed). They're also probably capable of attacking people (as they've proven capable of harming their own loved animals) in the name of animal freedom.

On the other side, you have groups that see only one way out. Rather than adapting and fighting a new war they only see an "us versus them" environment where unless you wear plaid and spend all your time in hunt camp you're the enemy, despite your willingness to learn. Indeed, it's a closed group that forces people away from them with open hostility and distrust. There's a reason people are so afraid of hunting and firearms - because we're not reaching out to them! People naturally polarize to topics, and if one side actively tries to draw them in, the other side's going to lose simply because of inaction. What about a hunter's group condeming this action and educating the public with it? Why not confront people and show them that hunters are outraged at this, and take away PETA's little propaganda campaign and use it for ourselves?? For many people, this video represents us. Just because within the firearms community we realise that 99% of hunters respect the animals they hunt and do everything in their power to give them the quickest and cleansest deaths with the littlest waste possible doesn't mean that anyone outside our community knows, realises, or recognises that.

Once again, today it can no longer be an Us versus Them debate, because "They" are making us a minority. We need to extend ourselves into the community, where like 50 years ago it was understood that through respect, responsibility and hard work one could be a hunter. Indeed, these are characteristics that are sadly lacking in our society today, what better way to promote a better society than through responsibility and respect? - Perhaps by showing that hunters and firearms owners represent this?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom