Am I wrong or is 1AM a little off the norm for hunt time? It just goes to show that all anti's are out of their minds, and that someone else is to blame for all of their accidents or problems. Just sue someone with deep pockets, you might win.
9 replies [Last post]
Mon, 2002-10-28 20:16
Wed, 2002-10-30 01:23#1
That is a good point Mike, the original suit did mention a 1 AM collision time. Guess I didn't pay attention to that part, since I dismissed it upon reading the title...
Welcome to the board!
Fri, 2002-11-01 00:49#2
PETA Vehicle Collides With Deer, PETA to Sue State Game Agency
Group Goes After N.J. Fish and Wildlife Agencies for Expanding
Deer Populations to Provide Living Targets for State Hunting Minority
For Immediate Release:
February 14, 2002
Matthew Penzer 757-622-7382
When a deer took out the entire front end of the car driven by two PETA
anti-hunting campaigners, PETA saw red—and it wasn’t just the blood of the
animal they believe was fleeing hunters’ guns. Today, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA) faxed to Bob McDowell, director of the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Fish and Wildlife, and
John Bradway, chairman of the Fish and Game Council, a notice of intent to sue
them as a result of the collision late last November.
PETA maintains that this accident—as well as thousands more that take place
every year— was caused by the state’s mismanagement of the deer population,
which includes purposely increasing herd sizes in order to provide more live
targets for hunters and so jeopardizes the well-being of people who use the
roads. In 1999 alone, there were more than 14,000 deer-vehicle collisions
reported in New Jersey.
PETA argues that by placing the interests of hunters, who amount to barely
more than 1 percent of New Jersey’s population, above the safety of the more
than 8 million New Jersey residents and countless out-of-state travelers who use
the roads, wildlife agencies are violating the state’s constitutional mandate
to provide protection and security to its people. PETA also opposes the fear,
the disruption of herd members’ relationships, and the bloodshed suffered by
the deer on grounds of cruelty to animals.
"Motorists should be warned that New Jersey’s highways aren’t safe,
thanks to wildlife management programs that put the amusement of hunters ahead
of the safety of drivers," says PETA Legal Counsel Matthew Penzer, who
hopes that this suit will encourage others. "New Jersey wildlife managers
are creating dangerous conditions for both people and deer."
A copy of PETA’s letter to the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection’s Division of Fish and Wildlife follows.
February 14, 2002
Bob McDowell, Director
New Jersey Division of Fish and Wildlife
P.O. Box 400
Trenton, NJ 08625-0400
Dear Mr. McDowell:
Pursuant to New Jersey state law, this will serve as notice that People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Dan Shannon, and Jay Kelly each
reserves the right to bring an action for damages and/or injuries sustained in
an automobile crash on November 16, 2001. Shortly before 1 o’clock in the
morning on that date, while driving a Honda Civic belonging to PETA (and while
returning from a PETA campaigning tour) southbound on the New Jersey Turnpike, a
deer darted out in front of the car and a collision resulted. The collision
occurred at or near mile marker 15.4 in Woolwich Township, Gloucester County.
Damage to the car was severe, resulting in a repair bill that exceeded $6,000.00
and loss of use of the car for nearly two months. The total amount of damages
is, as yet, unknown.
PETA, Mr. Shannon, and Mr. Kelly believe that this collision, which occurred
near the start of New Jersey’s hunting season, was caused by the state’s
Department of Environmental Protection Fish and Wildlife Division and the Fish
and Game Council as a result of their deer management program, which includes,
in certain circumstances, an affirmative effort to increase deer populations.
Despite the known dangers an increased deer population poses to motorists in the
state, the Division and Council actively assist in increasing the deer
population for the purpose of enhancing hunting opportunities and license
revenues. The result, as was the case here, is a significant number of auto-deer
collisions each year, causing significant injuries and property damage.
The New Jersey State Constitution expressly mandates that the government’s
responsibility is the protection, security, and benefit of the people. The
state’s deer management program effectively places recreational interests over
safety interests, thereby violating the obligations of the government to, above
all, act in the best interests of public safety. The constitution further
ensures the rights of persons to enjoy and defend their rights to, among other
things, life, property, and safety. The deer management program, which exists
only for recreational and economic interests, inherently threatens those rights
the state constitution guarantees, and is, therefore, unlawful.
Please send any notices to the address listed on this letterhead. Thank you.
Fri, 2002-11-01 00:54#3
Thanks for posting the article. I guess I had missed the argument that the State of New Jersey was deliberately mismanaging the deer herd to provide more targets for hunters.
How does one do that, exactly? I noticed that PETA didn't offer any support for their assertion that the state is purposely increasing herd size. Assuming that Jersey deer roam freely, subsist off of natural browse, have no natural predators, and breed at will, how can a state deliberately increase herd size except by restricting hunters? It's not like they have an artificial insemination program or feed stations.
So just when I thought PETA couldn't get any whackier, they come up with this. Seems to me that any possible solution to overcrowding would infringe on animal rights and thus conflict with PETA's agenda. Generally most activist groups like to at least adhere to their own platform. Perhaps PETA should start a campaign against itself.
I keep picturing that scene from "A Christmas Story," where Darrin McGavin thunders, "You used up all the glue...ON PURPOSE!!"
[ This Message was edited by: expatriate on 2002-10-31 23:58 ]
Fri, 2002-11-01 08:55#4
They are suggesting that the roads are not safe because of too many deer. If they were really concerned about the "ethical treatment of animals" they would say the deer are not safe because of too many roads. Also, if they dont want to kill any poor little creatures they should drive slow enough to avoid a collision such as this.
here's a funny side story:
the last couple years, peta has been raising a stink in our town. They bought a billboard that said "jesus is a vegitarian" and they would get women in bikinis to stand in front of steak houses handing out anti beef flyers. now, my home town boasts the name beef capital of the world so there's no way they are going to convince us cattle raisin' steak eaters to stop eating meat but they still try, anyway last year a coworker went to pick his kids up from school and peta was handing out brochures as the kids walked out. a quote from the brochure was "if you eat meat you will go to hell". well a couple guys decided they would do something about it so they put their grills in the back of their pickups and were handing out hamburgers to the kids right beside the peta people. it was great.
Fri, 2002-11-01 09:21#5
Next time peta tries to pull a stunt like that, y'all need to put up your own billboard: "Hitler was a vegetarian." True fact.
Until recently, I'd spent a couple years living within 30 minutes of peta headquarters. I've seen it all: protests saying "cow plop bingo" is demeaning to the cow, giving kids milk is child abuse, claims that denying prisoners meat might curb violent crime, you name it. I would've loved to see you Texans put them in their place.
I'll give up my meat when they pry my cold, dead hands from my steak knife. Anyone that claims cattle are being "demeaned" never looked a cow in the eye and searched in vain for some spark of intelligence.
Fri, 2002-11-01 09:37#6
Here's another way to trip up the peta people.
Let's talk "ethical" treatment of animals. Under peta's banner, beef, milk, wool, poultry, and pork are all inhumane and should be done away with. Likewise, zoos and circuses are demeaning to animals and should be abolished.
So if we adopted their recommendations and eliminated those things, won't that lead to extinction of every domestic farm animal? Do they believe that farmers will continue to raise these animals as some sort of hobby? Releasing them to the wild is unethical because they're nonnative species. And as for zoos, what about all those species on the brink of extinction that are being saved because of zoos?
Ask the peta people how they justify mass extinctions in order to further their political agenda, and watch them squirm.
Fri, 2002-11-01 10:14#7
I watched Bill O'Riley argue with some porn star that was a peta spokesperson one time. It was awsome. He had all sorts of facts about how without cattle, we wouldn't be able to support this world and how other animals would die and there wouldn't be enough plants to feed everybody. At first he asked her a few questions on what she thought was wrong or right and she basically said everything was wrong, zoos, feedlots, hunting, eating any meat, except she did say that they can do medical tests on animals because without that it would be impossible to cure diseases in humans and animals. then ORiley started in and the lady didn't have anything to say except "oh, i didn't know that"
Fri, 2002-11-01 10:18#8
I forgot to say one thing expatriate, they've never looked a calf in the eye. you're right, there isn't even a hint of intelligence in them. some people from peta should go work cattle for a day and realize how stupid they are then they'll know we aren't hurting their feelings.