# Peta



## teamfullbore (Mar 25, 2010)

Somebody at work told me this week that PETA had purchased 5000 doe tags for the upcoming ND deer season. . .

Just wondering if this is accurate and if there would be anything that could be done to prevent people from buying tags that do not intend to hunt


----------



## Fallguy (Jan 23, 2004)

I have heard of people doing that. I had a track athlete a few years back who told me her mother would buy a few tags a year to save some deer's lives. Her mother didn't hunt. I joked with her that I was going to send her mom the mechanic bill if I ever hit a deer.

I have noticed that this year there are no remaining tags for 2K2, the unit I hunt. Usually there are always tags remaining this time of year. Of course, maybe there were less total available. I never looked at those numbers.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Air Zimbabwe spam deleted.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

I know this is an old post . It is likely that this is happening to some extent. I doubt that the number would be anywhere near 5000. ND is a pretty rural state in which everyone is related to or knows several hunters and I doubt PETA could muster 5000 members to apply for tags. I also know that there are hunters among us that think the G&F have gone overboard and are buying them with no intention of using them....... Even so doing that is counter productive. If harvest quotas are not met the G&F would just continue to increase the available tags. All PETA would achieve is delaying the inevitable.


----------



## People (Jan 17, 2005)

Not to mention if the food supply is not enough they will starve to death. I do not know what way I would rather go but for a deer I would think being shot would be the better more humain way.


----------



## dakotashooter2 (Oct 31, 2003)

PETA members feel that we should let nature take its course in these matters. What they fail to consider is that predation is part of that natural course. Man is just "another" one of those predators. One who is not allowed to do it year rounds as most of the other predators do. Deer don't recognize us as being any more or any less dangerous than any other predator.


----------



## pat5150 (Apr 26, 2011)

Maybe PETA bought the tags to use to bribe people into joining their organization...


----------



## vtrons (Feb 14, 2008)

Petition your F&W to make it mandatory to possess a hunting licence prior to applying for the doe tag. This will virtually put a stop to any nonsense regarding the tags.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

This comes up every year about PETA buying license. Here is the thing! Even if you do not like people who are PETA members they have the right to buy a tag same as anyone else. The revenue goes into the G&F fund same as mine or anyone's. Now I have purchased doe tags in the past which I did not fill. So if they do not, so be it.

Granted it can skew the harvest, but I do not think it would affect it much. For some I am betting they hope that PETA does this, because it would mean less deer harvested and speed the recovery of the population.

My post is not an endorsement of the practice if it even occurs, but simply to point out that while a person may not like the group or what it stands for, they exist in free country where having a belief no matter how screwed up, is still allowed and protected as it should be.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ron, I don't believe anyone is questioning anyone's right to purchase a tag. I do believe it's a poor thing to do when there are those working hard to manage the population. That is, _if_, they were purchasing large numbers of tags, which I have a difficult time believing.

I agree with vtrons, make them buy a hunting license first. I doubt it will put a stop to it, but they can fund the G & F a bit more to save Bambi.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I say take their money. If they purchased 10,000 license and tags great. It will show up in a lower harvest rate and the state will simply adjust and issue more license next year. Then they can purchase 20,000 and lower the harvest rate and the state can issue more license. Drain the PETA jerks dry I say. 

More seriously I think if anything like this happened any state game and fish would pick up on it and adjust the number of tags accordingly. As for how we react to PETA I think we should be careful not to get faked out. This is like a boxing match and if you react to every fake that is thrown at you your going to loose. That's not to say we should not be vigilant, but reacting to every rumor will soon get us into a position where no one listens to us. Like the boxing match then they have us in a position to punch our teeth out.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Longshot said:


> Ron, I don't believe anyone is questioning anyone's right to purchase a tag. I do believe it's a poor thing to do when there are those working hard to manage the population. That is, _if_, they were purchasing large numbers of tags, which I have a difficult time believing.
> 
> I agree with vtrons, make them buy a hunting license first. I doubt it will put a stop to it, but they can fund the G & F a bit more to save Bambi.


So Long what would that accomplish? IF and I mean IF this actually happens if they are willing to spend $100,000.00 does it matter where it gets spent? The point is this is not something to get excited about, worried etc....because I do not think it occurs. It is simply an internet myth that pops up every year and gets repeated.

Just like extension of deer season if crops do not come off or it snows early or some other in some hunters mind a calamity is occuring that makes shooting a deer harder!


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ron, I guess that would depend on if they were looking to spend x amount of dollars vs. wanting to purchase x number of deer tags to make their desired impact. So in your scenario of $100,000 they would be able to purchase less tags if they also had to purchase the hunting license or spend more money. Reread my previous post, I also said IF this were happening and also stated that I had a difficult time believing it.


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Hunting is a privilege,not a right.This could be proscribed if it was a serious issue.In fact take their $$,then prosecute them under hunter harassment laws.  
I agree,its a myth at this point and doubt its ever going to be an issue.The LAST Dept they'd want to help is Game and Fish.Unfortunately,they are smarter than that.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

duckp said:


> Hunting is a privilege,not a right.This could be proscribed if it was a serious issue.In fact take their $$,then prosecute them under hunter harassment laws.
> I agree,its a myth at this point and doubt its ever going to be an issue.The LAST Dept they'd want to help is Game and Fish.Unfortunately,they are smarter than that.


Actually hunting is a right in ND passed as an amendment to our state constitution by the vote of the people a few years back.

Long, I do not disagree, but again if they buy 1 or 5000 tags regardless the cost, they have the legal right to do so. Which really is the point. The revenue still ends up in the same place, and granted less tags would end up in the hands of actual people going afield, I think it would not make any impact on the population. That large farmer renting an additional section of land that now posts it to protect HIS bucks will have a bigger impact!!!!!!!!!


----------



## duckp (Mar 13, 2008)

Very cool on the State right,didn't know that.Still can be regulated and proscribed though.For instance,the right to hunt isn't year around,is proscibed by age,criminal record,seasons,geographical area,whatever.Heck,the definition of 'hunting' could easily be drafted to exclude.Wouldn't take a legal whiz to draft.


----------

