Re: NANFA--Anti-animal bumper stickers
Thu, 14 Sep 2000 22:18:32 EDT

In a message dated 9/14/00 8:36:26 PM Eastern Daylight Time, writes:

<< Typical Liberal garbage...don't like what the person says, so you start
getting WAAAAAYYYYYY off topic and dragging in all kinds of subjects and
inuendo that was never even intended. One must learn and accept that
ignorance is a fact of life in liberals, moderates and conservatives there
are always a few that have to be jerks. Laugh a little people, sometimes
a joke is merely that...if you find it distasteful, GET OVER IT!!!

I'm sure that some of the people with the sticker are just joking. Because it
is such an extreme over-the-top message, some people get it for shock value
or because the very extremity of the message is so funny. Or some poeple also
get stickers or T-shirts that mock eco-extremist groups like PETA (I saw an
amusing T-shirt which someone wore to a pig-roast which said PETA- People for
the Eating of Tasty Animals; obviously someone was sick of their
sanctimonious and ridiculous proposals, like the banning of fishing and
hunting). But also I know that there are people who get it because they do
hate environmentalism and animals in general and get it to offend people.
This is not liberalism on my part (I consider myself to be conservative
actually), I just happen to know people like that. Like my dad, he
automatically equates environmentalism with losing jobs; sure, true
eco-extremists would come up with some sort of impractical solution which
would result in something like that, but I don't think politicians in
Congress, no matter how eco-minded, would take steps so extreme as to
eliminate jobs or economies; it just wouldn't be practical and no one would
vote for them. There are people in my area who have tortured animals and
think that it's funny. So there are actually people who get the stickers like
the ones mentioned above for malicious reasons; I don't lose sleep over them
but it helps me to realize that there is a signifigant portion of the
population which will always have a problem with anything done to benefit the
environment or animals and will always be against any laws passed to protect
them. Like the people at the hearing for the Endangered status of the Alabama
sturgeon; a lot of the people that were against helping the Alabama sturgeon
were manipulated by fear-mongering companies and anti-environmentalist
political elements into thinking they were going to lose their jobs over the
Alabama sturgeon. Those companies and politicians timed it to start
undermining protection of endangered species so that they would have less
restrictions on what they could do so they could make even more money and the
politicians wanted the support of these companies. Since the
environmentalists in the Alabama sturgeon case didn't have much support the
politicians didn't side with them because they considered them to be a
political liability. I think that's why a lot of people are against helping
the environment or animal species, some politicians create the impression
that Endangered species means endangered jobs and saving the ecosystem means
destroying the economy (sounds like some potential anti-environment bumper
sticker slogans right there). That and the eco-extremists like PETA who come
up with anti-dairy slogans like "Got Beer?" which sound stupid and
unbelievable and anti-fishing/hunting/pet-owning rhetoric which alienates the
public and turns them off to environmental issues; people start associating
eco-extremists with environmental issues and it hurts environmentalism's
I think that it's a bad idea to start a liberal/conservative debate; we have
people of both tendencies on this list, neither group is going to change the
other's opinions, and as far as conservation goes I don't think that either
group actually disagrees with each other that much; people on the list are
just interpreting too much hostility and antagonism as being present in each
other's email posts, or just misinterpreting them in general. Everyone needs
to remember that email is an imperfect format for communication and that some
misinterpretations are bound to arise as a result. We should all give each
other the benefit of the doubt and not assume that the other person is either
mocking a post or is necessarily even disagreeing with someone. We're all on
this list because we like native fish and want to protect them (I assume) so
we shouldn't be dividing ourselves along philosphical lines, we should be
glad that so many different people are on this list and are interested in
native fishes.

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,