|
|
|
|
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 10:13:23 AM | | excuse me - could you two stop indulging each other quite so much and turn your attentions to someone else? in particular my question and conclusions in message 223 that got lost among your bickering (i mean debating)? thanks. | |
|
| |
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 11:17:00 AM | "...don't slow down and rubberneck everytime you see a deer on the side of the road..."WithxAbandon, you just made my day!! Come to think of it, my dad does that ALL the time!!!
.Marc, MI Niteowl, UglyOldJohn: I have really enjoyed reading your posts. Thinkers like you are what women like me are looking for.
tomozzo: Please be informed before you lump all hunters, and slaughterhouses into a similar grouping. Not all slaughterhouses are up to the 'ideals' you spout. By the same token, not all hunters are roughneck killers. It's a pity some are so narrow-minded and uninformed.
CheshireCatalyst: "Animal populations become decimated through such
causations as invasive species, habitat destruction, disease, hunting, and the inbreeding and resultant overpopulation as an associated result of hunting. After
many bucks are taken, the remaining ones will breed as many does as possible,
and the resulting inbreeding is a very bad thing!" Hm. Do you have scientific proof that this 'inbreeding' is a 'bad thing' for wild animals? Granted, for humans to engage in such 'inbreeding' practices results in 'bad things' which are documented. But as far as the animals, their 'instincts' take over, due to the way they were created, so I'm not so sure your argument against 'inbreeding' holds up.
Also, it sounds like you may adhere to the Theory of Evolution, or are Atheist? Euthanizing humans vs. killing animals??? Only someone without Biblical knowledge would compare the two. "The World Without Us," by Alan Weisman: "It is narrative nonfiction...posing an irresistible concept" --NONFICTION, A CONCEPT. Um, is that PROOF??? NOPE.
And please don't sound so self-righteous, making it sound like it is only women who volunteer or donate to those in need. Blaming hunters or men in general for women's woes is ignorant.
This thread has evolved and become bigger than an 'Ask a Girl' category, a fact I thank the original OP for. I appreciate all the men's comments.
SouthernGuy1960: I too wonder how they can justify manipulating 'nature' chemically. I suspect those opposed to hunting, are also FOR abortion, as a way to 'REGULATE' society.
brandiw: Nice post. Great stats. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 11:37:06 AM | mess. 219...sir, regarding the term 'harvesting', you write , "There are ramifications to the words chosen. While killing is a subset of the conceptualization of harvesting, the use of the term harvesting is far more accurate in describing the rationale of the act."
hmmm, 'killing is a subset of the conceptualization of harvesting'....ok, so those who kill are now going to use this in courts as their defense?? come on. i think you are not being really truthful with that phrase that honestly boggles my mind to try and grasp its meaning.
so, could you please talk in simple english and explain what you mean by this and really answer my question as to the use of the term harvesting?....please? I would really like to know for it makes no sense to me at all...hence the question.
by the way, realizing you did not actually define why your chosen word is the 'far more accurate term' than killing, i looked it up and nowhere in the Food and Culture Encyclopedia, nor the Wikopedia dictionary do they use the term harvesting in any remote connection with hunting and the killing of animals, though the second source did say sometimes the term is used in connection with fishing, but no reference to hunting at all.....hmmm...wonder why. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 11:49:04 AM | www.dictionary.com:
v. har·vest·ed, har·vest·ing, har·vests
v. tr.
a. To gather (a crop).
b. To take or kill (fish or deer, for example) for food, sport, or population control. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 11:58:58 AM | thanks.....gosh, that's so disturbing to see proof of such a strong distortion of the original agricultural term, for it honestly does not connect it at all in the two sources I checked....
so, gathering is the same as killing....hence the connection one poster far back compared hunting to the holocaust, but that was so attacked.....
ok, i submit, as I have all along, to ignorance on this subject and am grateful for those who have helped enlighten me more. what a thought provoking, and equally disturbing, but also awakening thread. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 1:17:19 PM | Posted by Angel ladyd: "mess. 219...sir, regarding the term 'harvesting', you write , "There are ramifications to the words chosen. While killing is a subset of the conceptualization of harvesting, the use of the term harvesting is far more accurate in describing the rationale of the act." ... explain what you mean by this and really answer my question as to the use of the term harvesting?"
It appears that Searchingfor...? has answered your question to your satisfaction. I will be happy to explain what I meant though. All harvesting usually involves death in some way. Whether it be harvesting grain (reaping grasses), harvesting nuts ( the nut meat usually, but not always, dies while being digested), or, in the case causing all the uproar here, harvesting game. That is why I said that killing is a subset (a part) of what is termed harvesting wild game. One usually applies the term harvesting to the killing of wild game only when there are additional considerations/reasons for killing an animal beyond just for food or the deplorable cases where animals are killed for 'sport', 'pleasure', or trophies.
So, while harvesting almost always means something is going to be killed, one may certainly kill without it being considered harvesting. I felt that earlier in the discussion, some were playing fast and loose with semantics to muddle the fact that they weren't bringing anything to the table in the way of rational arguments. For wild game, the term harvesting has diverged a bit in meaning from the classical dictionary definition. Many now would not consider killing an animal just for food as harvesting. Harvesting game has taken on the meaning that, along with utilizing the kill to the fullest, there are conservation, environmental, or ecological reasons for initiating the kill(s). Many hunters don't make the distinction and lump all hunting under the guise of harvesting. The reasoning for this varies, some lack understanding, some feel the term is just PC language for killing and it gets the anti-hunting people off their backs, others are just flat out liars. While it may be accurate under a dictionary's definition, it isn't truly the case. I use the term harvesting in its usage by conservationists. If I mean kill, I use the term kill. If I mean killing for a conservation effort, I use the term harvesting. Killing is definitely in there, but the term harvesting carries a meaning beyond simply shooting up the landscape.
Sorry if I was confusing earlier. Hope this helps a bit. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 1:19:16 PM |
'killing is a subset of the conceptualization of harvesting'....ok, so those who kill are now going to use this in courts as their defense?? come on
Since you have chosen to bring the court defnese into this discussion. If one person hires another to commit murder for them, then the original conspirator is as guilty as the one doing the act of murder. We all agree that this is correct. Then how can a shopper going to the grocery store feel like they are not a part of the slaughtering of the farm raised animals that they enjoy eating. There is blood on your hands just as sure as if you were the one administering the kill shot.
I understand that hunting is not for everyone. I just don't understand how someone can childishly come out and hurl names at everyone on here for hunting, harvesting or killing an animal.......but thinks nothing of going to the store and filling their shopping cart up with meat from dead animals who they themselves are guilty of supporting the killing of those animals.
As for the use of the word harvest. If a vegetable is harvested, or picked....it is no longer alive and no longer continues to grow. Very same concept of harvesting a farm animal or game animal. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 1:36:19 PM | Depends on the women...
I like targeting so it's a turn on for me.
Not about other women...I personally think that is a great hobby and as long as he is not obsessed with it, that's fine. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 2:20:15 PM | tomozzo.. Your views of hunting are ignorent, as the same with many others here.
Deer rifle season open's on monday..Yippee kyeayy mother fu cker!!!!!!!!!
Whisky and gun's for everyone | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 2:21:26 PM | nature v...thank you for explaining that so completely and sensitively. i am much clearer now.
and niteowl, please know I have hurled no names at anyone on this thread and i did really look at that issue for me personally about not being a hunter and store bought meat in message 223.....and i think i made a valid point. please read it and let me know your thoughts. i'd like to hear them and not to throw a bunch of names at you at all.
thanks.
p.s. by the way, i've never filled my shopping cart with anything and definitely not the meat from dead animals...i actually eat very little meat (once a month I might eat beef, the same for chicken and twice a month for fish usually)...probably quite a bit less than most hunters i imagine...
i think the purposeful exaggerating has been part of the problem with this thread. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 2:50:38 PM | angel_ladyd
I'm sorry .....while you have a different point of view than I do, you have been very clear and very effective in presenting your side. I get the feeling that you are a respectful and intelligent person and debating a subject such as this is very effective in getting both sides of the argument out.
Unfortunately , and I notice this a lot more in the people that are against hunting, that they choose to hurl names instead of trying to do a little research and present some facts. I understand that this is a very heated and emotional topic, but we are all adults here and should present our argument in such a manner.
The reason that I initially looked into this forum is I had hoped to see some responses on here, and maybe find some women that I would like to write that wanted to know more about hunting and a rural lifestyle. It seems that this issue is seperated by city lifestyle vs. rural lifestyle.
The reason I initially responded and posted on this forum is because I felt very insulted by the response of one woman in particular who chose to call eveyone with a differing opinion than hers every name that she could find in her PETA handbook . A few others have followed her lead.
I don't want to give them any recognition in their childish responses.....Everyone who has read this thread knows who they are, and a number of people that I have contacted or been contacted by because of this thread have stated that they left this forum because of them.  | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 2:52:34 PM | angel_ladyd
To your earlier post ......none of the hunters on here said you should not eat meat if you do not hunt. They were saying to take the stance that hunting is murder when you still eat meat is hypocracy.
It is .........
But you haven't taken that stance so it doesn't apply to you.
And I'll bet if you flashed that smile at the sporting goods store you'd find the hunters are very will to share with a woman open to trying new things
CheshireCatalyst
If humans suddenly ceased to exsist 80-90% of the domestic edibles would either starve or be slaughtered by preditors wild and domestic. The rest would return to what they were before and become wild again (survival of the fittest you know) In the first ten years about 5000-10,000 species of animals would become extint. For one Domestic preditors would flood the wilds upseting the preditor/ prey ratio. We have kept about 5000 species from becoming extint by conservation .........scratch most of them. Some have become locked to either agriculture (living of cultivated feilds) or urbanization (living off of our waste)
The animals wouldn't be partying at our demise and living in harmony | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:09:56 PM | my position is very very simple. if you take pleasure in killing animals for ANY imagined reason, you are sick and your position is indefensible.
i'm not talking about eating meat or humane killing or overpoplulation or trying to fend off your reason by attacking me....any delusional reason you may have. the ENJOYMENT you get from killing an animal has no moral validity.
if you enjoy killing animals you are warped and mentally flawed. there is no defense for that. none. you can put up a thousand posts on this, try to divert the attention by name calling or some sort of insane reasoning but in the end it's crystal clear...
if you enjoy killing animals you are a pathetic creature who needs professional help.
you do, therefore you are. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:24:38 PM | ^^^^^^it is fun..
Messages this short may not be MessaMessages this short may not be postedges this short may not be postedpostedMessages this short may not be postedMessages this short may not be postedMessages this short may not be posted | |
|
livcom
|
Joined: 9/1/2007
Msg: 241 | |
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:47:10 PM | HUGE turn off for me personally.
What, if anything could a guy do to portray these things in a more positive light?
Why even try? There are alot of women who hunt and even more that have no problem with it. For those truly against it, there is just no positive way to spin it. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 3:53:39 PM | thanks nightowl. i understand.
wullis, (head hung low in shame), don't know if you're being sarcastic or not, (suspect you are), but i must confess - i'm afraid i am one that did use the word murder in one of my early posts here- mostly to point out that the words killing and murder really seem interchangeable to me and it was before it became clear that very few hunters writing on this thread actually hunt for sport at all......these were my words and they did set off some strong emotion, but as so often has happened here - they were totally taken apart and out of context, which distorted completely my meaning....." we kill or put people away for life for killing each other (animals in the human form)....seems very little difference to me, really. seems truly we are the hypocritical ones saying killing animals is sport, but killing people is murder. killing animals is murder too, in my opinion and to do it mostly for pleasure seems wrong to me. "
so, just couldn't let your comments go without admitting, um, actually......
and, tomazzo - this is the point that you make as well - if you really read this whole thread, you will see that across the board, no one actually says they hunt for sport - for the pleasure of killing the animals. They point out the need for food, the fact that it's a lot more humane way for the animal to live and die by roaming free and being hunted than to be raised on factory farms and butchered in slaughterhouses, or left to starve due to overpopulation....and they point out how challenging it is to hunt and what skill it takes to do it well.
furthermore, most respectful hunters here express the fact that they also find it disturbing that some hunters just enjoy the sport of it.
for me, it was the op's attitude that set me off and then of course he disappeared to find greener pastures (literally).....leaving the rest of us to 'work' on his thread in his absence.
so, as I said before, there's more agreement here actually than is apparent - even your clarification above shows you also agree with most of the hunters here on many things and only really are expressing your strong views against hunting for sport, though I'm not quite sure why you have to be so insulting about it.
it's amazing from such polarity comes awareness the two sides of the same coin actually might not be two sides at all - barring those with the extreme closed mindedness and refusing to see what others are truly saying ...but i have faith one day they too might awaken! | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 4:04:30 PM | Tommozzo
According to you latest post, as long as the meat is used either by the hunter or someone he chooses to provide the meat too, hunting is to be accepted??
Hunting all of my life and being a Taxidermist for over 20 years I know of no hunter that goes hunting for the shear thrill of killing. Actually if you ask most hunters, the actual kill is the low point of the hunt. I hunt to be in the woods, to be able to read the signs left for me and to embrace my roll at the top of the food chain. It is my heritage to hunt, and it will be my sons heritage to hunt.
If you choose to deny this heritage, that is up to you............but do not expect those that still embrace this role to respect your stance when you still choose to accept your position at the top of the food chain by craving meat.
Believe me, having grown up on a farm, I have yet to see a slaughterhouse that does not reak of the stench of death and odor of blood. There is a reason that the workers there where rubber suits.
On the other hand, I have never stepped foot into a forest that held this odor. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:05:58 PM | Searching for..........?
Inbreeding is usually bad for animals for the same reason that it's bad for humans. Selective inbreeding has advantages when you are trying to improve a species, but as you correctly pointed out, animals respond to instinct alone.
Here's the Wiki entry, cited here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
In essence,
"Inbreeding may result in a far higher expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected. As a result, first-generation inbred
individuals are more likely to show physical and health defects, including:
reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
increased genetic disorders
fluctuating facial asymmetry
lower birth rate
higher infant mortality
slower growth rate
smaller adult size
loss of immune system function.
Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. "
Regarding "NONFICTION" - I'm not sure you have a clear understanding of what non-fiction is. But you can also google the term "scientific method" which covers the concept of the how hypotheses are researched and peer reviewed.
No one made any claims here as to how women ended up in shelters. No men were blamed for women arriving on the doorstep of a shelter. Please re-read my posting.
My comments regarding the arguments linking hunting and euthansia were laced with irony. I am surprised it did not set off your "irony meter." You took them out of context.
If humans suddenly ceased to exsist 80-90% of the domestic edibles would either starve or be slaughtered by preditors wild and domestic. The rest would return to what they were before and become wild again (survival of the fittest you know)..."
All domesticated animals and plants would die within weeks. Soybeans, wheat, rice, safflower, canola, alfalfa, and sugarcane would die as well, since they have become so
genetically engineered. If we stopped plowing, planting, fertilizing, fumigating, fattening goats, sheep, cows, these lands would return to the pre-agro-pastoral state. What 5,000 species have we kept from extinction? Citations please. We have caused more extinctions, this much is common knowledge. Wild species would continue on with hardly a blip.....
ippee kyeayy mother fu...cker?
You don't say! Hey, for this, I have no words - I rest my case here. 'Nuff said.....
Be well everyone.......... | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 5:32:45 PM |
Did you know that, each year, deer collisions account for over 1.5 million accidents, resulting in thousands of injuries and over 150 fatalities?
We are alerting you because your area has a large deer population and an increased risk of deer collisions from early October through late December when the deer mating season is in full swing.
The above is an email I received from my insurance company. About 10 years ago in Michigan, one of the larger insurance companies in the state threatened to sue the State of Michigan if it did not reduce the size of the deer herd for both Deer /Auto accidents, but also for property and crop damage.
Until a better method of controlling wildlife numbers is adopted, then Hunting will continue to be the method that is used by Government Agencies in controlling them. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:14:28 PM | Posted by Angel Ladyd: "it's amazing from such polarity comes awareness the two sides of the same coin actually might not be two sides at all"
With almost any polarizing issue, the inflexibility of those who hold to the extremes of each position are the ones who normally cause the biggest bloodbaths, so to speak, in discussions. As you have noted.
As you also have noted, many who hunt respect the decisions of people like Livcom's (not to single her out, she was just the last one to post her preference). Hunting isn't for everyone and a dealbreaker for many. I respect those who don't care for it and don't want it involved in their lives. Doing your own killing for food involves some very thorny ethical decisions if done responsibly. I never lightly set my gun's sights on an animal with the intent of pulling the trigger. Some hunters do, can't deny it. They can bang away all day and never have a twinge of remorse. I was never like that when I hunted. I was raised in an area where on the first day of hunting season, there wasn't a male student in any school. Every male was out in the woods that day. It was a part of the life and death cycle and I was taught to respect it as such.
What can be amazing is the turnaround in opinion that some of even the staunchest anti-hunting advocates have when, as the phrase has it, nature happens to them. Where I now live, alligators have become one of the greatest recovery success stories. Right up there with bald eagles and wolf reintroductions. Alligators have now returned in numbers so great that they have become a problem, not only in outlying buffer zones, in suburbia as well. Let someone walk out their back door and find a 12 foot alligator there with the end of their dog's leash dangling out of its mouth. They are screaming for eradication, not relocation of the animal. You are a villain and murderer for killing a warm and fuzzy deer, but you durn well better pop a few rounds into that relatively unlovable gator. The poor gator is just doing what it does best. I find it funny that many of the people who hate hunters the most, scream for them the loudest when nature actually comes knocking on their door in an inhospitable manner. Nature is great, as long as its happening somewhere else and to someone else. Save the deer, shoot the gator. Funny if it weren't so sad. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:30:33 PM | Besides my blunder discussing 'Non-Fiction', the fact still remains that the book you referred to is ONLY a good read, the author's CONCEPT/THEORY....Not PROOF of your views.
"Natural selection works to remove individuals who acquire the above types of traits from the gene pool. Therefore, many more individuals in the first generation of inbreeding will never live to reproduce. " Thank you, here you clearly show that nature has it's own way of protecting a species, there not being a danger of the inbred animals to procreate. My point. Liscensed hunters are only given so many game tags, they don't just go out and shoot however many animals they want, bucks or does. And unless they have a semi-automatic weapon(illegal to use in most states)there is no way they will be able to shoot more than two deer standing smack-dab in front of them. The risk to a 'family' of deer is minimal.
"And so what if your hunter friends donated meat to a woman's shelter? Who do you
think donates the clothing, provides re-training, and other essentials of life? Is it you guys, with the wife beater shirts? Do you see many abused women in shelters wearing mesh wife beaters or camos? I bet you don't. That's because regular folk such as myself are providing them with these resources, either through charitable donations or direct donations of used clothing." People of all kinds donate goods of all kinds to shelter, for men and women. You made it appear that a hunter's donation of meat was less than what anyone else would donate.
tomozzo: Finally!! Something I can completely agree with you on:
"If you enjoy killing animals you are a pathetic creature who needs professional help."
Keyword here: ENJOY, people. My dad does not ENJOY killing, he ENJOYS HUNTING: v. tr.
a.To pursue (game) for food or sport.
b.To search through (an area) for prey: hunted the ridges.
c.To make use of (hounds, for example) in pursuing game.
d.To pursue intensively so as to capture or kill: hunted down the escaped convict.
e.To seek out; search for.
f.To drive out forcibly, especially by harassing; chase away: hunted the newcomers out of town.
v. intr.
a.To pursue game.
b.To make a search; seek.
There is no joy in the actual act of killing, unless you are as tomozzo says, in need of professional help.
| |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:43:58 PM | Not only is she minimizing the donation of food to charity organizations by sportsmans groups but with satements like:
"And so what if your hunter friends donated meat to a woman's shelter? Who do you
think donates the clothing, provides re-training, and other essentials of life? Is it you guys, with the wife beater shirts?
She is clearly pointing an accusatory finger that the only people that cause women to go to these shelters are indeed these sportmans groups. If you were to do a geographic break down of this....you'd probably see a higher percentage of spousal abuse in the inner city areas than the rural areas. | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/3/2007 8:55:27 PM | | Glad I could make someone smile, Searchingfor...? I have learned exactly what I can and can't tolerate in a hunter having grown up in an area where four wheelers and deer stands are more prevalent than a high school education. :) | |
|
| Are guns/ hunting a turn off for most women?
Posted: 11/4/2007 4:28:00 AM | Again, we see misunderstanding here. We agree inbreeding is bad. But what you are not seeing is that hunting removes individuals from the gene pool, thereby increasing
inbreeding. It's actually a very simple extension of that thought process. Animals do not give any thought process to whom they mate with, thereby, when you have one buck mating with an unusual number of does in a season, you will have inbreeding. You have eliminated the gene pool of the other bucks that would otherwise have contributed their genetic material and all the advantages that go with that. Therefore, these animals are wasting their resources producing individuals WHO WILL NEVER SURVIVE IN MANY CASES. They are producing weak, inferior specimens in many cases. Even if most did not die in the first year, as already noted, they may suffer immune deficiencies, and die naturally, which seems to be such a horrid thing for so many to contemplate here.
Why is it a good thing if nature deliberately produces animals that have lesser opportunity to survive? Would that philosophy work with humans? Of course it wouldn't. Are we there yet? :-)
And as I suggested, you should google the term "Scienctific method" it explains how scientists in general make sufficient observations to come up with such theories that
"inbreeding is bad," or "what would happen to the planet if..........." Here you go:
"Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering
observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.[2]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methodologies of knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to predict dependably any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.
Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established."
Cited here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
I have never seen a women's shelter requesting venison or any game meat as part of their program. While I'm sure many would accept it if offered, what people on low incomes need is not venison. I know that if I were an abused or unemployed woman in a shelter with or without children, I would be asking for:
Social Assistance
Disability benefits and appeals
Unemployment Insurance Applications and appeals
Assistance with landlord/tenant disputes
Income tax assistance with low-income earners
To proclaim that supplying game meets the needs of many of the people who end up in shelters diminishes their problems. Let them eat cake? Any claims that sportsmen's groups CAUSE women to go to shelters is simply a non-sequitur. Nobody ever said that here. I have clarified (above) exactly what was said, and that is that donations of VENISON or GAME does not put clothing on the backs of disadvantaged people in shelters, and does not solve the complex issues that homeless or abused people are experiencing.
Be well everyone........ | |
|
|
| Page 10 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
