my gf's peta teacher is saying trapping is illegal

reply to post by TheWalkingFox


Yes. This is one of those cases where it really would be useful to know where we're talking about? Alaska? Maine? Scotland? India? Madagasgar? Kazakhstan? Hong Kong? All have differrent laws and different ideas on what is aceptable. And it's not fair to suggest what is acceptable in one place is acceptable in another. Or vice versa.

reply to post by Essan

Actually, it states in the first line of the OP that the incident occurred in Pennsylvania.Trapping is legal in Pennsylvania, although for some animals, such as bobcats, there is a season for trapping.

OP it sounds like you are scared that the teacher's morals will rub off on your GF's son. If she is a good mother to him it won't affect him will it? Just make sure he learns both sides of the argument and he will make his own choice eventually no matter what his teacher or mother tells him.

well italked him last night and he said that shetold him trapping is illegal and that its not hunting season. so she knows nothing of what she is saying
trapping and hunting fall under different laws and regulations in pa and furthermore hunting season is open year round depending on species.
but to stand him up front of class and berate and belittle him in front of evreyone and say not only is it illegal but also morally wrong and then the other kids point fingers at him and tease him is wrong.
yes she is entitled to her opinion but she as a teacher is also entitled to speak the facts not lies or opinions.
not sure if gf will pursue this or not but i am pushing her too.
and as for private land yes you do need permission(duh) but i am pretty sure i do as i am the landowner

I thought she only said it was illegal? When did she say it was morally wrong? That quote was not mentioned prior?

Any chance the child told stories of his adventures that would lead the teacher to think it really was illegal? For example if the child did not have a junior liscence and told the class he participated in trapping and or shooting the animals it would be illegal. Tag alongs are fine until they actually take part, correct? Even if you did let him, and it was no biggy-It may have been something he wouldn't know to keep from spilling to the entire class. That is one possibility that it went down as "I went hunting, I got to do such and such" "oh you did? that's illegal though" etc..

I wouldn't know, but just the vibe I get from this, doesn't feel malicious

when i talked to him she it was wrong to kill animals and not moral.
and yes he was a tag along which is fully legal- all he did was carry bait and stake bucket for me.
gf has said she will pursue this and parent/teacher conference next week so i will see what comes of this.
if i need other kids to come in and say what happened so be it.
like i said it is he said shesaid thing so we want to get to the bottom of it
and i am not being malicious-yes he can make up his own mind- but what about being teased and the other kids that are in the classroom that may very well be brainwashed by lies?
my point being if she wanted to state her opinion ok but she has a moral right as a teacher to present both sides of the story as a discussion and let the kids make up there mind- not just lie and then belittle him

I was saying the teacher doesn't sound malicious (that it may be an honest mistake) Not about you being malicious.

I hope your gf can have a sit down with the teacher and find out her point of view. The appropriate thing to do would be for her to call his parents and ask what is going on had she suspected anything. She definitely should not embarrass him.

I will look forward to hearing the results of the teacher conference.


You learned to hunt when you were young?

hehe

people are gullible these days , her opinion on the subject made her tell a lie to the children that are there not to be taugth lies.

if i had the power i´d sack her asap or have her get in touch with reality for a second and take her hunting or berry picking , here the "wild food grows"

we call it "Food" but its made in factories be it domisticated cattle or domisticated crops,

only way to be true to the "sxe" movement which much of this hysteria originates from is to eat of your self , be it urine, poo, scabs, nails what have you... but thats the only way to go without acturly "killing" anything/"anyone"

with that said im gonna enjoy my breakfast of factory milk, factory eggs, factory bread and wild meat and wild seabuck thorns in my PJ made by children in dark crammed warehouses who´s yearly vague is not even equalent to that of a car tire of respectalbe quality.

reply to post by Zerra


yes i learned to hunt trap and fish at the age of 4 or so from my father and grandfather(god bless his soul- he was highly decorated in ww2)
so on thanksgiving day it will be 35 years i have been taught and practiced
i was always taught that even if you don't agree with something to keep your mouth shut-not politics tho that is a different reason- not push your personal beliefs on others- want a discussion fine if you want one- and not be cruel to animals- we all need to eat or make a living some people see trapping as cruel but so is hitting one with a car and they wander off and die but that is ok because the people only worry about the damage to their car

reply to post by zerbot565


yeah i know what you are alluding too- everything we eat anymore is gm food.
what every happened to eating natural food you grow or shoot that is wild and not pumped full of chemicals?
personally i would rather eat a deer steak than beef(altho i love delmonicos)
i can go pick 15 gallons of blueberries in aweek that are wild they taste the same just not as large and i have to spend the time doing it but i know they are cleaner and healthier than what i will buy- just have to watch out for bears and the rattlesnakes and copperheads oh my

I don't personally know anyone who has hit an animal with a car without feeling guilt of some sort. Those are accidents though. Not much can be done for them after such an impact unfortunately. I don't personally drive, but my friends and family will leave the horn sounds going at night if we are near an animal crossing.

I'm not sure I understood Zerbot's post but if they were implying hunting (for food not sport ) is better than factory farms I would agree (for meat eating people). I don't eat meat, but I do prefer natural foods-vegetables and fruits are difficult to find without chemicals. Even white rice is unnatural (I prefer brown).

I am actually a big supporter of Ted Nugent. In my opinion - law abiding hunters have more respect for animals then animal rights activists.

A "real" hunter knows about habitat - breeding cycles - proper method to cause the animal as little stress as possible - and are the number one contributor to animal conservation.

Those who hunt/trap their own food have great respect for where that food comes from. How many even think about where their meat comes from.

Hunting/Fishing/Trapping licenses are the major financial support for animal conservation. I doubt many Peta members independently put money where their mouth is.

------------------------------------------------

However - that really isn't the issue of the blog.

If a teacher makes an innocent mistake thinking trapping is illegal - - it shouldn't be a big deal.

If a teacher believes it is morally wrong - - she/he needs to understand that is his/her choice. Not something she should push on to her students.

reply to post by Zerra


be it meat or crops , you kill the product or harm it before putting it in your mouth ,

some molds are alive , but pure m0old is not that yummy ,

my point was more or less that eating without knowing where your food comes from is very irresponsible and relying just on factory processed food is just as hypocritical be you vegan or omnivore or just plain carnivore.

and teaching children that wounds pour flowers and that animals"sleep" when hunted be it in the big open wild or in a barn is plain silly.

how we live now is what we´ve become, not what we are.

Originally posted by Annee
I am actually a big supporter of Ted Nugent. In my opinion - law abiding hunters have more respect for animals then animal rights activists.

The belief system is so different that any contest between who is more respectful would be seen through completely different perspectives.
Animal rights activists (majority do not consume animal products). The act of killing is an automatic cruelty/disrespect in their eyes. While meat eating people or hunters would probably consider respect as humane death or even managing over population. The original poster claims that trapping can accidentally catch stray cats or pets and he's come across this. For a hunter that is a necessary risk, for an animal rights person it is cruelty and unnecessary suffering. two different mind sets based on different sets of belief. There ar bad seeds in all places, we know the media loves to focus on the negative. I am not a PETA supporter, but am an animal rights person. I am not an extremist and I don't stop people from doing what they want to. I don't have money to save the planet, but I do what I can by volunteering. I do not agree with a lot of information posted and if this were a debate I'd gladly give more information, however for now, my point is just that these are two different trains of thought-and each individual stand on their own-we can't know which respects more if their belief systems are different.

Originally posted by zerbot565
reply to post by Zerra

 

be it meat or crops , you kill the product or harm it before putting it in your mouth ,

some molds are alive , but pure m0old is not that yummy ,

my point was more or less that eating without knowing where your food comes from is very irresponsible and relying just on factory processed food is just as hypocritical be you vegan or omnivore or just plain carnivore.

and teaching children that wounds pour flowers and that animals"sleep" when hunted be it in the big open wild or in a barn is plain silly.

how we live now is what we´ve become, not what we are.

I respect and admire your bluntness and how you do not beat around the bush with issues. It is a world where most of our food is processed, you are right. It is hard to eat anything without knowing where it comes from. My motto in life is to do the least amount of harm-knowing that I may try to stay away from factory farms, but I could easily step on an ant or even eat a fly unknowingly-ew lol.I am also trying the same concept with other foods-least amount of harmful foods (to my health) as possible. It's never easy and we can't be perfect in this world, but if i know I can choose soy over meat-though processed, I will take the soy-b.c it is the lesser harm (health wise).

At a certain age children have no abstract reasoning-so they won't understand death, which is why some parents will use the word sleep because it is as close to their reasoning as you can get. But I do understand your logic in that parents want to paint pretty pictures for something that is really much more grim. I'd say more but I'm trying my best not to be pushy....in this thread lols :p

reply to post by Zerra



Zerra - don't misunderstand. I am also an animal rights supporter - - but that has to be defined.

Where do you live? Do you live in a structure? Did that structure take away habitat from another species?

Humans are a naturally carnivorous animal. I believe the natural instinct to hunt - to be warriors - etc - - - is natural - - and stronger in some - more then others.

The Circle of Life - is what it is. As humans are more evolved and have an awareness - - - laws and licenses are put in place to protect animals and habitat. Most of the funding for that comes from hunters/trappers/fishing - - not from animal rights activists.

Poachers & those who do not follow the strict laws put in place - - now that is a different story. They should be released in the wild with no provisions.

Animal cruelty is also a separate subject of discussion.

I personally have tried many eating patterns over the years including vegan. However - my body has a blood sugar imbalance. After 40 years of experimenting - - the only thing that keeps my body in balance is Beef. I would prefer Salmon - - but only Beef seems to work.

Originally posted by Zerra
. . . I could easily step on an ant or even eat a fly unknowingly-ew lol.

That's kind of funny. I try really hard to pay attention to where I put my feet.

I really do try not to cause harm unnecessarily.

reply to post by Annee


annee have you ever tried eating wild game such as deer,elk,moose,caribou,bison, etc? even wild birds- squirrel- really any wild game.
that might help your count- don't know but is alot healthier than eating beef with chemicals injected into them and their food.
sorry to hear salmon doesn't help as it is high in protien and the oils are good for you- plus it's my 3rd fave fish and is supposed to ward off cancer and heart disease

My responce was that all things being equal (a hunter is more than likely living the same house and heating benifits as a animal rights person) that respect boils down to two different ways of belief. That blanket statements don't work.

I would only only like to correct the statement that we are carnivores. Eating large animals is a result of domestication, weaponary, and is a cultural factor not a biological one. We are not carnivores. War is still being debated between culture and nature. From my own anthropological studies, I go with cultural factors due to land settlement and agriculture. (the need to defend crops)
www.vegtaste.com...

It can be argued we are omnivores, of course, so is the chicken. The question is what is the meat source supposed to be? For the chicken a cow wouldn't be it lol and we know today doctors suggest that red meat is causing us problems.

Originally posted by Zerra
My responce was that all things being equal (a hunter is more than likely living the same house and heating benefits as a animal rights person) that respect boils down to two different ways of belief. That blanket statements don't work.

I think you are being defensive - where there is no reason for it. This is not personal. I'm not talking about you.

I'm just presenting a different viewpoint.

There are animal activists who "walk the talk" - - I'm not saying there isn't.

There are those who won't use any chemical pesticides - who are conscious of the human footprint on the ecological system. They plant trees - flowers - and put in water elements around their home to replicate and replenish natural habitats.

But there are also a lot of "trendys".