Plans of the Antis!

Mountain Boomer

New member
Dec 10, 2000
I found this on another forum. A guy had posted this script from one of the Anti-Hunting sites. It talks about how they are going to outlaw hunting. Guess who is second on the list...Houndsmen!

Anti-Hunting Column
One Step At A Time

Welcome, everyone, to this special meeting of the Citizens Against
Cruelty to Wild Animals. Those of you not presently on the
board of Directors have been invited because you have proven yourselves
with long-term commitment to the principles of animal protection.

You have been foot soldiers in our campaign. Now we directors believe
you are ready to assume leadership roles. In order to do so, you must completely
understand our objectives and methods. Blind commitment is no longer enough.
You must be ready to take the offensive, to plan and execute new strategies on
behalf of wild animals.

I must remind you that we do not speak publicly about these concepts, except in
the most general of terms. This is not because we are ashamed; we just don't
want to help the enemy by letting the public see our complete agenda. Full
knowledge of our goals would help to coalesce an essentially leaderless enemy.
Stated simply, we are working for the elimination of sport hunting.

In our effort to bring an end to the insane cruelty of sport hunters, we have
embarked on a series of small incursions based on the timeless principle of "divide
and conquer".

Our first step has been to isolate and end trapping. Leg-hold traps elicit strong
feelings among many people, especially city dwellers, and make no mistake, our
battle will be won or lost in the cities.

Even dedicated hunters, who might be expected to support trapping, have shown
animosity toward the practice. This breach allowed us to isolate trappers from
other outdoorsmen and end their horrific practice in several states. As out nation's
population becomes more urbanized, we expect to eliminate it altogether.

Our experience with trapping illustrates fatal flaws in the hunter's psyche. You
must understand these to be successful. First, although they kill and eat wild
animals, hunters do care about animals but heir concern is for the species and
not, like ours, for individual animals.

Now, don't look at me like I've betrayed a sacred trust. This is no time for
wide-eyed innocence. I'm revealing a weakness that you can exploit. Because
they actually care for animals, hunters are quick to condemn someone else's
actions as detrimental to wildlife. That's why hunters deserted trappers in
referendums around the country. That's why more than 50 percent of Colorado's
hunters voted against spring bear hunting in 1992.

O, given hunter's sentimental approach to wildlife and their tendency to vote
against each other because of different techniques,
what should our next target be?

Hunting with hounds, obviously.

Running animals with hounds, like trapping, is easy to portray as cruel.

People have a prehistoric fear of being chased that helps them identify with prey.
However, attempting to completely outlaw hunting dogs would guarantee failure for
us. We would get caught up in questions about the use of pointers and retrievers
in upland waterfowl hunting. We will go after those activities at some point in the
future. The time is not yet right.

In the meantime, we have begun a campaign in several western states to eliminate
the use of hounds in hunting bear and cougar.
We are optimistic of success for the same reasons we were successful in
Colorado. Most hunters do not hunt bear or cougar. History tells us that, because
they don't take part in the practice, those hunters who do not participate will gladly
help us vote it down.

In order to strengthen our effort we are actively portraying bear and cougar
populations as being in desperate need of protection. This is not strictly true. In
fact, a great deal of state fish and wildlife data indicated that bear and cougar
populations are healthy and increasing in most areas. But before you condemn our
Machiavellian manipulations, remember that we are involved in a crusade to wash
the disgrace of sport hunting from our national canvas. This is a noble purpose and
one that justifies occasional deviations from the truth. If the cause is just, the end
truly does justify the means.

Our next logical step is bowhunting. Again, we have a natural chink in
the armor. Many rifle hunters resent bowhunters because of our claims that a
higher percentage of animals are wounded and lost with arrows than with bullets.
Again, this weakness results from the hunter's concern for animal welfare. There is
also an element of jealousy involved. Bowhunters are allowed to hunt for longer
seasons and during the rut, when the animals are most vulnerable.

To make our jobs even simpler, bowhunters themselves are bitterly divided over
their equipment. What kind of gear should be considered traditional or modern, and
which should be legal or ethical? Although we philosophically oppose hunting, we
hope the modernists take control. The more high-tech and effective their weapons,
the more bad feeling will be created within the ranks of gun hunters. Ultimately, the
larger the schism between archers and gun hunters, the easier it will be for us.
You should be thinking along these same lines as you develop strategies for the
future. It should be a relatively easy process down the road "to pit the blackpowder
enthusiasts against the modern riflemen," etc.

One final thought. As successful as we have been, you must all be aware that our
potential for failure is very real. If we get too greedy, if we try to take away too
much too soon, we might actually revive America's hunters and galvanize them
into a potent political force. We can't afford a mistake like that.