# Bob Barker Donates $1million to save PA Pigeons



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

Had this emailed to me. Such great news for the pigeons suffering in PA! 

_'A TV icon is taking a stand for the pigeons of Pennsylvania.

Bob Barker, the former game show host and one of the nation's most generous animal philanthropists, has donated $1 million to stop pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania and says he will be joining protestors outside a Bensalem gun club where shoots are being held regularly. 

Barker said the donation will go to SHARK, an Illinois-based animal activist organization dedicated to putting a stop to these shoots.

The organization plans weekly demonstrations at the Philadelphia Gun Club in Bucks County which two years ago began holding pigeon shoots despite a cease and desist order issued by Bensalem Township. In 2002 the township said the shoots violated local firearms laws and constituted animal cruelty. The club recently filed suit against activists and neighbors for harassment.

Barker also said he will support legislation being considered in both the state House and Senate that would ban the use of live pigeons for targets and make organizing or operating the shoots a crime. Animal rights activists in Pennsylvania have been fighting to win passage of anti-pigeon shoot legislation for two decades.

Pennsylvania is the only state where live pigeon shoots are openly practiced, according to the Humane Society of the United States. The contests - held at gun clubs, most of them in Berks County - involve launching pigeons from spring-loaded boxes where shooters fire on them at close range. Many wounded birds are scooped up - often by children - their necks broken and the carcases disposed of. But other injured birds end up outside of the clubs only to suffer a slow death from their wounds. 

“The very characteristics of a live pigeon shoot are such that the event cannot be held without causing extensive animal suffering,” said Barker. “Live bird shoots are held under the guise of ‘sport’ target practice But they offer neither sport nor hunting.”

The Humane Society of the United States estimates that about 22,000 live birds are used as targets every year in Pennsylvania.'_

Here's the link to the discussion thread it came from.
http://forums.manhattanbirdclub.com/post?id=4433248


----------



## c.hert (Jan 15, 2010)

Thank God someone is taking a stand and putting some money up to do it with..c.hert


----------



## Crab_Shrapnel (Jan 17, 2010)

Thank you, bob barker


----------



## sky tx (Mar 1, 2005)

I do not agree with using pigeons for SHOOTS -Dog Training-Etc.
ONE Million Dollars sure would go a long way helping the Homeless in Pennsylvania.


----------



## Ivor (May 12, 2008)

I really enjoy this news, and the most important thing is that nobody can say about how he can spend his own money, is a great cause, and we all have our own ideas, Bob Barker is a hero to me!!! 

Ivette


----------



## MaryOfExeter (Sep 30, 2007)

I've read a little bit about how much he's done for other animal rights things. I'm just glad he's noticed the pigeons too!  Most of the time people just think of cats and dogs being abused, puppy mills and dogfighting. But not many realize pigeons are being abused just as much!


----------



## Columba livia! (May 4, 2009)

I always liked that dude! Rock on Bob!


----------



## Mindy (Apr 2, 2009)

Thank you, Bob Barker. I hope they stop shooting pigeons. min


----------



## Skyeking (Jan 17, 2003)

*Good deal!*

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Garye (Feb 20, 2005)

IT'S ABOUT TIME SOMEONE CARED ABOUT THESE BIRDS. 

Now that we have a National figure representing the wellfare of these birds, maybe they'll stop this mess.

I feel for the homeless, but there seems to be more people willing to help them than pigeons. I'm glad someone like Bob Barker is taking on the pigeon case.


----------



## Guest (Jan 29, 2010)

Bob Barker has always been one of the good guys


----------



## Dobato (Jul 3, 2008)

All I can say is God bless Bob Barker.

Karyn


----------



## TerriB (Nov 16, 2003)

Way to go, Bob!!!


----------



## maryjane (Jul 15, 2006)

Awesome!


----------



## rririe (Jan 21, 2010)

Maryjane, what kinds of birds do you keep? Just a fellow Santa Rosan wanting to know. I just got back into the hobby recently of B. rollers after many years. I'm teaching my kids the art of pigeonry!


----------



## Msfreebird (Sep 23, 2007)

THANK YOU BOB BARKER


----------



## PoppyFieldVet (Apr 9, 2009)

Thank you Bob Barker, so nice to see someone who supports all animals. I'm a bit of a follower of sea shepherd so heard about him that way, but to hear he's backing this too is brilliant!!
XxX


----------



## hasseian_313 (Oct 31, 2009)

thats great man shooting pigeons for target parctece is wrong and a waste of life


----------



## Southwing (Feb 7, 2008)

I just want to say I agree with the stopping of wasting any life. Pigeon racing is not my only sport and I would be very unhappy if someone gave 50 million dollars to stop fishing or hunting. I agree with what he is doing but i disagree with giving it to any group that make it their life to stop people from their rights, I'm dredging the day that only the military will have the right to have guns. And it is only a matter of time before PETA is telling us when and if we can race pigeons like they do other places. 
Sorry and I know people will be upset, I will not respond to the post because I do not agree with taking away rights of others.


----------



## Guest (Feb 6, 2010)

Southwing said:


> I just want to say I agree with the stopping of wasting any life. Pigeon racing is not my only sport and I would be very unhappy if someone gave 50 million dollars to stop fishing or hunting. I agree with what he is doing but i disagree with giving it to any group that make it their life to stop people from their rights, I'm dredging the day that only the military will have the right to have guns. And it is only a matter of time before PETA is telling us when and if we can race pigeons like they do other places.
> Sorry and I know people will be upset, I will not respond to the post because I do not agree with taking away rights of others.


No one has the right to abuse and torture animals. Shark uses video to document animal abuse and bring it to the attention of the public. The videos speak for themselves.


----------



## Charis (Feb 11, 2007)

sasha008 said:


> No one has the right to abuse and torture animals. Shark uses video to document animal abuse and bring it to the attention of the public. The videos speak for themselves.



Couldn't have said it better.


----------



## feathers111 (Jun 30, 2009)

Southwing said:


> I just want to say I agree with the stopping of wasting any life. Pigeon racing is not my only sport and I would be very unhappy if someone gave 50 million dollars to stop fishing or hunting. I agree with what he is doing but i disagree with giving it to any group that make it their life to stop people from their rights, I'm dredging the day that only the military will have the right to have guns. And it is only a matter of time before PETA is telling us when and if we can race pigeons like they do other places.
> Sorry and I know people will be upset, I will not respond to the post because I do not agree with taking away rights of others.


Southwing—

As you note, the issue of live-pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania is a rights issue, but it is foremost an interests issue: The human’s interest (which is currently a legal right) to enjoy the sport of live-pigeon shooting versus the animal’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. In Pennsylvania, live-shoot pigeons do not have the legal right to avoid pain, suffering, and death attached to their interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. And so it comes down to the human’s interest in enjoying the sport of live-pigeon shooting versus the animal’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. Personally, I don’t think there’s any comparison in the moral value of these two interests, but as moral philosophers always note, human rights are, well, made by humans. So it’s no surprise that the human interest in enjoying the sport of live-pigeon shoots legally trumps the animal’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. If you don't believe me, just imagine the uproar if Pennsylvania allowed live-human shoots. 

You say “I disagree with giving [money] to any group that make it their life to stop people from their rights" and "I do not agree with taking away rights of others," but where do you draw the line with "rights"? Would you stop Bob Barker from his right to give money to the organization of his choice? If so, then you contradict your own argument.

When you say “it is only a matter of time before PETA is telling us when and if we can race pigeons,” you are making a slippery slope fallacy. 

A person’s position on the live-pigeon shoot legislation comes down to how they see the moral status of pigeons. And how a person sees the moral status of pigeons has to do with how they value the interests of pigeons in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. If you’re open to the possibility that a pigeon’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death ought to be given at least equal value to a human’s interest in enjoying the sport of live-pigeon shoots, then you may consider this legislation as morally the right thing to do.


----------



## sreeshs (Aug 16, 2009)

*"All beings are fond of themselves, they like pleasure, they hate pain, they shun destruction, they like life and want to live long. To all, life is dear; hence their life should be protected." *- *Mahavira*

Wholehearted thanks to Bob


----------



## StanelyPidge09 (May 22, 2009)

Sasha said it perfectly and YAY Bob Barker! Pigeon shoots are barbaric and disgusting and they need to be banned. I am sad to say I live in the only state that has yet to catch on.


----------



## bluebirdsnfur (Jan 20, 2009)

WHOO HOO! WE LOVE YOU BOB BARKER!!!


----------



## Whitedove06 (Jul 7, 2009)

Hi all- A while back ago, I read the book "Ringer" by the young adult book author; it is set in PA, and tells the story of a boy and the pigeon who adopts him. It made me cry; its a happy/sad story.


----------



## ae2359 (Oct 7, 2008)

Anytime HSUS is involved with an article I tend not to believe a word written in that article.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

Yep give the old coot some credit, he did donate a cool million to stop pigeon shoots, though for the life of me, I have not a clue what one would do with that million to stop what is currently legal in this Commonwealth. And then again, this guy has also donated $2.5 Million to help stop you from having chicken or beef, or any other meat for supper tonight also. And part of that $2.5 million would also aid PETA in their goal to stop the sport of racing pigeons. So before you cheer him on too much, if you have pigeons in your back yard, that is a BIG no no with PETA, which he has funded quite nicely, thank you very much.


----------



## Jimhalekw (Jan 1, 2010)

It is hard not to love Bob, I do and what he has done. No one is right all the time, and I am usually right less than most regularly.  There is a problem in PA that goes deeper than stopping the shooting. I spent my teen years there. At the age of 13 I started going to the local farm auction weekly. Barn pigeons were something that sold. I saw catching barn pigeons as a way to make money and went around to ALL the farmers and talked them out of using poison as pigeon control. I would climb in the rafters at night and catch pigeons in all the farmers barns, and they agreed not to use poison at all. The barns in PA in my area were greatly Amish design with open eves that allowed pigeons in. As a kid I thought that it was far better for them to be caught and sold than poisoned. I really had no idea what they were being used for but I didn't want to know, they were not being poisoned! I thought maybe they were being eaten, still better in my mind. In my later years here in Key West I still find myself deeply involved with helping people with feral pigeon problems. I do not see a solution other that getting personally involved. Jim


----------



## Jaye (Mar 13, 2008)

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> Yep give the old coot some credit, he did donate a cool million to stop pigeon shoots, though for the life of me, I have not a clue what one would do with that million to stop what is currently legal in this Commonwealth. And then again, this guy has also donated $2.5 Million to help stop you from having chicken or beef, or any other meat for supper tonight also. And part of that $2.5 million would also aid PETA in their goal to stop the sport of racing pigeons. So before you cheer him on too much, if you have pigeons in your back yard, that is a BIG no no with PETA, which he has funded quite nicely, thank you very much.


Leaving aside your particular interpretations above.....you know what I don't get, Warren ?...maybe you can explain it here....

how is it that you can support Bob Barker on his donation towards the opposition of pigeon shoots....

_....when you support them yourself ????_

It's just something my mind cannot quite reconcile.

You have no issues with pigeon shoots...yet you give Barker credit....and hate PETA.....

Very interesting.....

Maybe while you are at it you can explain how a guy who raises pigeons and claims to care about them.....can support the capture, starvation, and shooting of them, too..... 

It'd just enlighten me....


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

*Have you no shame ?*



Jaye said:


> Leaving aside your particular interpretations above.....you know what I don't get, Warren ?...maybe you can explain it here....
> 
> how is it that you can support Bob Barker on his donation towards the opposition of pigeon shoots....
> 
> ...


_

IMHO, your questions are really quite disingenuous. 

I do not support the extremist views of the so called animal rights activists, nor do I condone the violence and terrorists acts which they have committed in the name of animal liberation. 

Since I do not condone violence or terrorist acts, the readers will have to decide if that automatically makes me guilty of the cruel and terrible things you allege I am guilty of. 

The readers can judge for themselves, by reading the thousands of posts I have placed on this very Pro-Pigeon and Pro-Life site. After reading a few thousand of these posts, then they can decide if I am innocent or guilty, and then perhaps they should decide for themselves how much creditability... "Jaye"... you should have going forward. 

I would also like to add, that I am not hiding behind a fictitious user name. My name is Warren Smith, my loft name is Smith Family Loft, and my address and phone number is available on the American Racing Pigeon Web site._


----------



## sky tx (Mar 1, 2005)

Jaye-- Maybe tell us how you cull your birds or how you keep the numbers down?Don't say you throw eggs away--thats abortion or not?
Warren -myself-other people and JUST maybe you "Jaye" live in the USA because of our Freedom to express our feelings. And give My money to whoever or for whatever.
We do not question how/what you believe-BUT don't tell us we are in the Wrong.
I'm sure I object to some of the things you do for "enjoyment'--BUT thats your Opinion.
Your location does not tell me much-SF--East coast--West coast-Up North--Down South. Your location may explain the way tou think.


----------



## Jaye (Mar 13, 2008)

SmithFamilyLoft said:


> IMHO, your questions are really quite disingenuous.
> 
> I do not support the extremist views of the so called animal rights activists, nor do I condone the violence and terrorists acts which they have committed in the name of animal liberation.
> 
> ...


Warren...I am still left waiting for you to answer the question...after having waded thru the various off-topic rants about pro-life....terrorism....usernames.....and random other socio-political subjects which have nothing to do with the question I asked (granted...your reply was very telling in certain respects ~ but nevertheless completely sidestepped my simple query). 
I apologize if you are offended, but really my question was quite serious and not necessarily intended just to ruffle your feathers, so to speak. Nor was it intended to question your _credibility_. I was simply asking for some clarification.

So...rather than casting aspersions upon my character for whatever reason you deem necessary.... I'd prefer you just help us here understand how you can reconcile 2 seemingly contradictory things.

So...I'll ask it again:

You claim to be a proponent of our pigeon friends..... You are also a member of organization(s) which arguably take the welfare of columbids very seriously.

Can you help me understand how...then....you are perfectly OK with pigeon-shoots ?

That's all I asked....and I am still waiting for an apt reply.....


----------



## c.hert (Jan 15, 2010)

I would love to see someone donate a million dollars to a non profit business without a tax deduction. c.hert


----------



## sky tx (Mar 1, 2005)

Matriarch----A woman who rules-or dominates a Family-Group-Clan-Tribe-State.Hope that title is never under my name.


----------



## c.hert (Jan 15, 2010)

Smarty pants senior..lol c.hert


----------



## conditionfreak (Jan 11, 2008)

I must be having problems with my eyes (which frequently happens), because I do not see any in consistency in Warrens stand. He understands what is legal, and what is acceptable in society. He understands the right and legality of hunting, as well as the difference between creulty to animals, and legal hunting. Additionally, he understands the accepted norms of society towards eating meat as a choice (the opposite being to be a vegetarian as I am).

I have read most, if not all, of Warrens posting over the years. I do not find there to be an inconsistency, except for his occasional late night , had too much to drink or too much pain medication postings.

I am one of the most anti animal use persons to visit this forum. By that I mean, that there are only a few of us here that are actually vegetarians, or close to that. We all are, of course against cruelty for the sake of cruelty. But I and a few others here do not even like cows and chickens being intentionally bred, born and raised, for the sole sake of becoming food.

But that is another thread. I do understand the CHOICE of eating meat, and of hunting. I do not participate but understand that it is acceptable and legal. I believe PETA goes way overboard and have said so in past postings.

What Barker did and does with his money, seems admirable enough, even though I am not a fan of his. He has had his "issues" over the years. Affairs, polital views, etc. But in this instance he did a good thing. We should leave it at that.

Warren is a grown man. With opinions his own. Just like the rest of us. He need explain himself to no one. This goes for all others here.

Asking someone how and why they have seemingly contrary views about a subject, could be directed to anyone that keeps pigeons. Or to anyone who professes to care about animals, yet eats steak, chicken or fish. Is it too easy and low, an attempt to make someone look bad. Pick your fights if you must fight. This is too minor an issue and IMHO, is petty. But feel free to exercise your rights to your opinions and expressions. (as I have done).

Thank God for freedom in this country and others. Try posting contrary opinions in China, Iran or Korea.


----------



## sky tx (Mar 1, 2005)

YES Conditionfreak--I have had to work in a few 3rd World countries--HAD to "watch" my mouth--be very careful not to say anything negitive about anything in their country.
1 or 2 of them Kept my Passport -until job complete to their satisfaction-and they were ready for me to back to the USA.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

Jaye said:


> Warren...I am still left waiting for you to answer the question...after having waded thru the various off-topic rants about pro-life....terrorism....usernames.....and random other socio-political subjects which have nothing to do with the question I asked (granted...your reply was very telling in certain respects ~ but nevertheless completely sidestepped my simple query).
> I apologize if you are offended, but really my question was quite serious and not necessarily intended just to ruffle your feathers, so to speak. Nor was it intended to question your _credibility_. I was simply asking for some clarification.
> 
> So...rather than casting aspersions upon my character for whatever reason you deem necessary.... I'd prefer you just help us here understand how you can reconcile 2 seemingly contradictory things.
> ...


I am offended by your accusations, presented as questions. And from my perspective, you have no character of which to be concerned about having aspersions cast upon it. We would have to know who you are in order to throw aspersions on your character. 

I am also offended by the aspersions you rather clumsily attempt to throw on the pigeon organizations I am a member of. If you don't like me, fine, but why bash the organizations which took me in ?

The issue of these so called "Pigeon Shoots" has been discussed on this forum, and my posts within those threads articulate my views. It is a matter of public record. Your statements and innuendos are a misrepresentation and mischaracterization of my views and statements, which you are very much aware of.

If you don't like my posts, then fine, simply don't read them. Some people agree, some disagree. At the end of the day....sometimes I don't really care one way or another. But, you are not going to bait me into another one of those "Animal Activist" debates....and if the SF on your profile means San Fransico...then hell, that explains everything.


----------



## Jaye (Mar 13, 2008)

...I ask a question....and you decide to flame me.....

2x....not just once.....

It's odd, because I don't really know how I could phrase it any more respectfully....Just a quick clarification here, for everyone. I am not 'demanding an explanation' of anything or anyone. I am simply addressing something which caught my attention and trying to figure out how a person can reconcile two contrary positions in regards to animal welfare.

With that said...I didn't pull this stuff out of the blue, and you and I both know this, Warren. So, suffice it to say I am basing my question on information which came directly from you...not from any misconception or invention of my own.....and let's leave it at that, for the sake of yourself, myself, and everyone else as well.

The thing is....well.....here's the thing:

....you are a pigeon person, apparently. Yet, clearly from your posts... you seem to despise animal-welfare and animal-rights organizations. This.... I would hazard to guess, at least in the context of this Forum..... is the result of some calling into question the practice of pigeon racing.

Now...that was discussed in another thread which ended up closed/locked. And, you know what ? I tend to agree that PETA's position in this instance may be a bit strident. In other cases, sometimes yes... and sometimes no.
PETA and similar organizations can be like that, sometimes they overshoot their mark and perhaps ruffle feathers of potential allies. But oftentimes the need to call attention to incredible cruelties outweighs the risk of alienating some. 

But all of that is another discussion altogether....so I will not digress any further.

You see, Warren...my concern here is this: 

~ PETA is critical of pigeon racing. PETA and SHARK are critical of pigeon shoots. 

~ Because PETA doesn't like pigeon racing....Warren doesn't like PETA. So, _whatever PETA doesn't like_ ....is an activity which is A-OK with Warren.

~ And that is how you have reached your position that pigeon shoots are OK.

All I would ask of you.... is that you step back and reconsider that line of thinking...because it has taken you to a place which I am guessing is contrary to where your heart lies....all in the name of, I dunno what, precisely....some sort of adherence to social or political partisanship (?) I dunno....

"My enemy's enemy is my ally". 

That 'policy'....has led to some really bad partnerships throughout the history of this country, I believe you would agree.

You see Warren...I don't think that you are a bad guy. Your commentary has never struck me as such in the time I have been here. And I don't believe that deep-down you really are OK with pigeons being mass-netted, thrown in a truck and transported hundreds of miles in unsanitary and dangerous conditions to holding areas where they are denied food and water to weaken their state....then released in the middle of the boondocks so a bunch of ******** with guns can blow them away (killing a few, but injuring the majority and leaving them there to die over a period of hours if not days). I don't think this is acceptable to you (or others holding similar values, beliefs and views), or becomes acceptable, on the basis of it being something which the likes of PETA and SHARK are trying to stop.

I don't think any pigeon person really finds this acceptable or even a 'necessary evil'. Honestly, it is becoming very apparent that MOST people, regardless of their affinity for animals...finds this to be nothing less than barbaric. Which is why Bob Barker gets kudos from 99% of the respondents so far.

So, anyone who so claims to be a pigeon person.... yet is willing to go along with these shoots....is just someone who I would posit a few questions to. In the absence of a serious reply or even any semblence of discussion, then...all I can offer is the suggestion that the path which has led one to such views might need to be revisited and re-examined. 

That's all....


----------



## c.hert (Jan 15, 2010)

The Philadelphia Gun Club in Bucks Country are the ones who are breaking the law because they were given a cease order to stop these shootings by Bensalem County.
Bob Barker put up one million dollars to try to stop these shootings for he sees the cruelty in them and put up some good money to fight this practice. Now what bothers me with this discussion going forward between Jaye and Warren is some of the comments that were wrote to belittle this effort on Bob Barkers agenda and one of these comments are in this posting and I will try to paraphrase it by this quote made by Warren: "I have not a clue what one would do with a million to stop what is currently legal in this commonwealth". This is not legal for they were given a cease and desist order and part of Barkers money will go towards this to stop the shooting of pigeons. Then Warren expresses more disdain of Peta an organization he clearly hates because he feels that they are taking "rights away from people questioning have pigeons in the backyard and they will put an end to this too" We have two radical facits here : We have the pigeon racing people vrs the peta people and both of these I feel are out of line at times. You could drag into this discussion all kinds of things that each of them has done or didn't do and you get nothing but hatred on each side. The main point here is to stop these cruel pigeon shoots---thats the point---not arguing over Peta and the Pigeon racing people's point of view because their views are both bordening on Radical thinking at times. It's the heart of the situation and the cruelty of this practice that is the main frame here.
In my opinion you both are acting like children---spoiled children---thinking you are helping your concerns by as much hatred that radicals possess and I have one question for you each to answer: Do you support these pigeon shoots or not and knowing each of you for such a short time but have been watchful of your duties--I will say that each of you : Does Not Support This Practice....thats how I see it....c.hert


----------



## Bluecheckard (Jun 23, 2008)

I don't see in any of warrens post that he supports the practice of pigeon shooting. none of any pigeon owner want's his beloved pigeon get hurt or get killed by this so called pigeon shooter. what I see and believed in is every pigeon flyer hates group of people that try to take away our freedom to enjoys pigeon sport.


----------



## ohiogsp (Feb 24, 2006)

Why don't people educate themselves on the organizations the are supporting. If you really want to help animals give money to the humane society. Not to be mistaken with the humane society of the US. Even though that is what they would want you to do. 

First off if you are not a vegitarian how can you support them? That is a major rule there. "Animals are not ours to eat". They get all kinds of money and volunters but what do they do with it? Well I can tell you. They stoped a resteraunt "The Wazuzu Restaurant" from serving lobster in herber arizona. What a joke! They have a map of their accoplishment if you are interested. http://www.peta.org/mapofaccomplishments/


There is about 75 things they did with the green dots "this is for a year people". Some of the green dots are good, but like in my area they did save some puppies and kittens but with a green dot they stopped a place from poisoning pigeons. Yay right! but read further and it says then humane methods were then used. They still killed the pigeons but it was a victory for peta because at least they didn't poison them. How about it be a victory if they didn't kill them at all !!!! 

Truth is there is only about 75 green dots on this map with who knows how much money and 2 million members. WoW, and alot of these dots are for one animal. Now there are alot of red dots because these are protests and events. They are good at this but what does it show? Well they are good talkers but not so good at accually doing anything about it. But, I bet it does get them more money!!

Now if I went to any humane society locally or wherever and asked them how many animal they saved from being killed by adopting them out and we then put green dots on a map for every one to see, we would not be able to see anything but green. 

As for the pigeon shoots. I don't know why there was a order to stop but I would suggest it is only because there is a case against it. Will it be stopped? I seriously doubt it. It is perfectly legal. You can kill a pigeon in any way you see fit all over this country and a shotgun is no worse than poisoning. If I had my choice on ways to die, I would take the gun anyday even wounded and having to be finished off. 

I guess my point is maybe BOB should have gave the million to people all over to just live with the pigeons on their roofs instead of killing them, or to the humane society. It would have done more good and he wouldn't have supported extremest like PETA or the HSUS. After they pay the big shots there at peta most the cash is gone anyway. Since they set their own salaries they make real good money. If you keep pigeons as pets be very careful about supporting extremest that will somday be fighting to take you birds away because it is not humane to keep them as pets at all !


----------



## Pigeon0446 (Apr 22, 2007)

I've had my gripes with Warren b4 because I feel somtimes he might be a lil arrogant the way he puts him self up high and he knocks other ppls success a bit. But that might just be because that my first experiance on this forum was him kinda belittling the success of my Yellows. But I'm on Warrens side on this because I've been on here for a few years now and I've never seen Warren say anything about supporting these pigeon shoots in any of his posts. What he did do was state some facts and then added his opinion that the million really won't do anything to stop the pigeon shoots becuase he belives it's legal to still do it in PA. I think it's wrong and disgusting what they do to the pigeons there and PETA should be involved with that kinda stuff(and not just use it for publicty to get more donations actually go out and do somthing). But where they lose me is with their over the top rhetoric where they say nobody should have any animal or use an animal for profit or enjoyment. I could start the whole argument up all over again about how what they say makes no sense and some of the stuff they think is rational is just crazy but I'll leave it at that because you can see my stance in the PETA thread that was closed if you wanna go back and read it.


----------



## SmithFamilyLoft (Nov 22, 2004)

*NO, I am not in favor of, nor do I like pigeon shoots...*

I may have to ask another Moderator to come to my aid in moderating this thread. I am to personally and emotionally involved to effectively act as a moderator and as a poster. 

First, please keep in mind, that in my very large and extended family, there are farmers, hunters and members of Sportsmen clubs. Within our local pigeon club and within our Combine, we are out numbered by these kinds of folks by at least a 1000 to 1, if not many times that. 

For the record, this is a thread I started some time ago concerning a local sportsmen club holding a live Turkey shoot. I don't for the life of me, know why anyone would think I would jump up and down and be happy if this same group conducted a live Pigeon shoot. 

http://www.pigeons.biz/forums/f5/elstonville-sportsmans-association-cited-for-torture-19052-2.html

Other links where I attempt to stop the killing or mistreatment of pigeons:

http://www.pigeons.biz/forums/f5/pigeons-lovers-beware-of-dog-trainers-9837-3.html

http://www.pigeons.biz/forums/f5/help-stop-the-killing-in-milford-mass-9475-2.html



In this Commonwealth, we do things differently then perhaps in other states. We do not operate by Mob rule. We don't go and burn down buildings or pigeon lofts or chicken houses if we disagree with someone. We have our State Representative enter a bill and then they go through a process to vote on it and turn it into a law. 

As it stands right now, any farmer, landowner, or homeowner can go out into his yard and discharge a firearm at any pigeon, where he is legally able to discharge such a firearm. These various groups, be they PETA, SHARK or whatever, can picket and take video's to their hearts content to raise money for their various activities. They can go out and get in people's faces, they can burn down sportsmen's clubs, and all other legal or illegal kinds of things. 

But, until a State Representative introduces a bill which places some kind of protection status onto the pigeon, then all the protesting by the six or seven PETA or SHARK, etc. members who drove through the night to stand there with their signs and protest, will be of little value in changing the law, but it might help their national organization raise funds. 

So, I think what Jaye was really getting at. Is am I willing to stand beside those PETA or SHARK members holding signs and protesting in front of the sportsmen and hunting clubs, the vast majority of which do not hold pigeon shoots, and talk about not only outlawing pigeon shoots, but hunting as well ? The answer is no. Because not only are there 1 million plus hunters in this Commonwealth, there may be twice that number who own family farms. And as we all know, those various groups are also opposed to farming. 

These radical groups come into the Commonwealth and into a county, raise their hell and go home. We, on the other hand, have to live and work with these people every day. And I would rather sit down and discuss with my State Representative and State Senator in a calm fashion, why we should have laws to protect our racing pigeons. Without being painted with the same brush as the environmental and animal rights wacko's which the politician sitting in front of me will know if he sides with them, then he will be unemployed at the next election. 

So, *NO, I am not in favor of, nor do I like pigeon shoots*. But, I also don't like laws which prohibit the keeping of pigeons in one's back yard. And in many counties in Pa., which has the highest number of hunters in the nation, it is very likely that some of those board members sitting on city council or county commissioners, etc. are hunters, and/or members of a sportsmen club or hunting camp. And/or has relatives who are farmers or make a living in some shape of form due to agriculture. So, no....I do not want to find myself in the cross hairs of these guys. For the most part, PETA, SHARK, etc. etc. members live in a city somewhere and do not have pigeon lofts. 

And, within our pigeon Combine, I can tell you, we have more hunters, sportsmen club members, farmers, etc. then we have members of PETA, SHARK, etc. etc. So where the diffences really lie, is how does one bring about change ? I can tell you this, I was making some headway within our Combine about moving more towards a kinder more gentler attitude. But, the recent flap concerning Mike Tyson and PETA, sort of threw out years worth of work. I can pretty much guarentee you, that the hundreds of pigeon fanciers I know in Pa., will not be marching or picketing with PETA, SHARK or any other activist group which seeks to diminish the rights of farmers,hunters or pigeon fanciers within the Commonwealth. 

And so that is my story, that is my position. My thoughts are, to end pigeon shoots, the way to go about it, is different from the members of PETA and SHARK and other such various front groups. Getting people actively involved in the pigeon owning process, joining a pigeon club, and educating the public on our sport, is direction I have taken. Have a local story printed in the local paper about Jr. members and their pigeons, and the likelihood that the local sportsmen group will hold a live pigeon shoot is greatly diminished. My idea is to build consensus, and to win the support of these people. Not to get in their faces and call them names for the purposes of raising funds from the city dwellers hundreds or thousands of miles away.

Thee end.


----------



## c.hert (Jan 15, 2010)

That was very well written and educational and it made an impact: Thank you very much Smith Family Loft...c.hert


----------



## Big T (Mar 25, 2008)

Jaye said:


> Warren...I am still left waiting for you to answer the question...after having waded thru the various off-topic rants about pro-life....terrorism....usernames.....and random other socio-political subjects which have nothing to do with the question I asked (granted...your reply was very telling in certain respects ~ but nevertheless completely sidestepped my simple query).
> I apologize if you are offended, but really my question was quite serious and not necessarily intended just to ruffle your feathers, so to speak. Nor was it intended to question your _credibility_. I was simply asking for some clarification.
> 
> So...rather than casting aspersions upon my character for whatever reason you deem necessary.... I'd prefer you just help us here understand how you can reconcile 2 seemingly contradictory things.
> ...


Why would Warren be OK with pigeon shoots when one of his own birds came home from a race SHOT!!!!!!! Really you only need to read his posts to know the answer.

Now my problem is this; it is great for Bob to donate but how is the million going to be spent to stop something that is legal?? Lawyers or lobbyists?? Let's no forget admin fees. I find most people throw money at a cause and feel they done their good deed, but have they really? I do not donate because I find most money is spent on salaries and office space instead of the problem. I find that letters to senators, city councilmen, mayors with recommendations for bills to change laws have a more direct approach. The more people write then the more notice the recommendations get. 


Also feathers111 stated:


> As you note, the issue of live-pigeon shoots in Pennsylvania is a rights issue, but it is foremost an interests issue: The human’s interest (which is currently a legal right) to enjoy the sport of live-pigeon shooting versus the animal’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. *In Pennsylvania, live-shoot pigeons do not have the legal right to avoid pain, suffering, and death attached to their interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. *And so it comes down to the human’s interest in enjoying the sport of live-pigeon shooting versus the animal’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. Personally, I don’t think there’s any comparison in the moral value of these two interests, but as moral philosophers always note, human rights are, well, made by humans. So it’s no surprise that the human interest in enjoying the sport of live-pigeon shoots legally trumps the animal’s interest in avoiding pain, suffering, and death. If you don't believe me, just imagine the uproar if Pennsylvania allowed live-human shoots.


Try as we do animals cannot avoid pain, suffering, and death. It is a part of all our lives, men too. Man's influence cannot change that fact, only the how. So while we can band together and change the law to stop the shoots, know this, Pigeons breed at a fast rate because they are prey, they are food for many animals. This is why even with the shoots their population keeps growing and why most people see them as flying rats.

What is the right answer? I do not know nor pretend to know, but I do know this, Mother Nature has her own set of checks and balances that man, try as he will, cannot change.

God Bless,
Tony

PS Pennsylvania has live-human shoots. Have you seen the murder rate in Philly, the city of brotherly love?


----------



## Big T (Mar 25, 2008)

conditionfreak said:


> I must be having problems with my eyes (which frequently happens), because I do not see any in consistency in Warrens stand. He understands what is legal, and what is acceptable in society. He understands the right and legality of hunting, as well as the difference between creulty to animals, and legal hunting. Additionally, he understands the accepted norms of society towards eating meat as a choice (the opposite being to be a vegetarian as I am).
> 
> I have read most, if not all, of Warrens posting over the years. I do not find there to be an inconsistency, except for his occasional late night , had too much to drink or too much pain medication postings.
> 
> ...


conditionfreak I have always found issue with people demanding animal rights while eating their hamburger, but you sir are true to your word because you do not. You also give respect for people, me included, for their opinions. I do not always agree with you, but you have my respect. 

God Bless,
Tony


----------



## conditionfreak (Jan 11, 2008)

Big T, Jaye and Warren.

The people on this forum that I have butted heads against the most, are you three.

Yet, you are all three near the top of the list in my respect for your intelligence, ability to articulate your opinions in clear and concise writtings, and are all three obviously not wishy washy about your stands on various issues. You all three have my respect, even though we have and will butt heads in the past, in the present and in the future.

It keeps the mind sharp to debate issues. It also helps others see and consider a different side of issues and enlightens them in the realization that all things are not black and white. That there are shades of grey in many areas. Such as my recent posting about my stance on humanely putting down animals and humans, under certain extreme conditions. No one wants to, but sometimes it is necessary.

In regards to this endeavor, I believe Big T touched on it well. Everything dies eventually. I know of areas where they send out squads of hunters to eradicate deer in certain areas because those areas are overpopulated and all the deer are starving due to not enough food to sustain them all.

Now, the choices are in those instances, that "we" could allow them to all starve to death. Or take tax dollars and feed them forever. Or feed them for a short time and figure out a way to keep them from overpopulating by interferring with their fertility.

I believe the LOGICAL way to deal with this issue, is to do what we currently do. Cull the herds and provide food for some humans, and thus provide for the deer remaining to eat healthy.

It is not what I like, is not what I desire, and is no where near what my heart can stand without shedding a tear.

But it is the best solution that I can come up with. Short of turning our culture and land, back to the 18th century.

Ever wonder what we as a race would do, if all of a sudden we had some chickens, cows or turkey "show up", that spoke to us in our own languages, and professed their love of thier children and THEIR God?

Would we continue to eat them?

I believe 95% to 99% of us would! It's something to ponder. No matter how highly we think of ourselves. When the aliens come (and they will for sure come. It is just a matter of time), there is a very real possibility that we will become slaves for sure, and could even become food for them.

It will all depend on how we taste to them.

Let's hope we don't taste good.  I suspect we don't.


----------



## Jay3 (May 4, 2008)

Big T said:


> conditionfreak I have always found issue with people demanding animal rights while eating their hamburger, but you sir are true to your word because you do not. You also give respect for people, me included, for their opinions. I do not always agree with you, but you have my respect.
> 
> God Bless,
> Tony


The animal rights that the hamburger eating people are demanding is the HUMANE treatment of the animals. To kill them in a quick way with as little pain as possible. There are horrific cruelties that go on in these places that kill the animals which are not necessary in order to kill them. Just because an animal is going to be used for food, doesn't mean that they should be tortured and tormented and handled in cruel ways that cause them more pain on their way to being killed. Some will argue that the very killing of these animals is not humane, but if you cannot see the difference in the killing of them for food, and needlessly tormenting and torturing them on the way to slaughter, then no, you will never understand why hamburger eating people are fighting for the better treatment of these animals.


----------



## Skyeking (Jan 17, 2003)

I appreciate you all sharing your opinions.

The problem with heated debates, is people will attack each other unfortunately to try to get their point/opinion across.

We all have right to speak ,and share our opinion, but at some point we have to agree to disagree without hurting each others feelings. 

I love a good debate like the rest of us, but it is not a debate anymore when people insult each other and feelings are hurt.

Lets get along and on with it.


----------



## re lee (Jan 4, 2003)

Jay3 said:


> The animal rights that the hamburger eating people are demanding is the HUMANE treatment of the animals. To kill them in a quick way with as little pain as possible. There are horrific cruelties that go on in these places that kill the animals which are not necessary in order to kill them. Just because an animal is going to be used for food, doesn't mean that they should be tortured and tormented and handled in cruel ways that cause them more pain on their way to being killed. Some will argue that the very killing of these animals is not humane, but if you cannot see the difference in the killing of them for food, and needlessly tormenting and torturing them on the way to slaughter, then no, you will never understand why hamburger eating people are fighting for the better treatment of these animals.


ANIMAL RIGHTS ARE FINE BUT this is a forom for pigeon related postings NOT a place to bring in debates that end in heated opinions on rights. Im sure there are foroms where this can go on BUT I closed the last thread when it was getting to debated and one sided buy What you were saying . YOU MAY think you are doing good BUT this kind of posting bring more reasons for some to dislike PETA. And other groups because of over stating the postition. PIGEON shoots have been a thread for somtime AND had been cival up to this point YOU might think of toning your thoughts down . Through trust and kind words only then can peole see right and wrong. NOT forceful statments that is opinioated by THE one


----------



## sky tx (Mar 1, 2005)

YEP--This thread needs to be locked. No one is going to change anyones believes.
Guess they just like to see their name on a World Wide site.


----------



## Jaye (Mar 13, 2008)

(Quite honestly...I see no necessity for this conversation to become locked. It has not descended to such a level. Some subjects are heated, some are not. On any forum dedicated to the subject of animals, this stuff will come up now and again, as it should. I do not believe at this point, after having re-perused forum rules, anything here has warranted a shutting-down of the thread...so I do hope that the conversation can be maintained...because within the prickliness here lies some fascinating stuff).



SmithFamilyLoft said:


> I can pretty much guarentee you, that the hundreds of pigeon fanciers I know in Pa., will not be marching or picketing with PETA, SHARK or any other activist group which seeks to diminish the rights of farmers,hunters or pigeon fanciers within the Commonwealth.


Thanks for replying again, Warren. Herein lies the problem which I noted earlier above. 

But a brief _aside_ for the moment, out of necessity/clarification (although also done with a sense of disappointment):

I read a statement Warren makes where he states unequivocally that he is OK with pigeon shoots if it keeps PETA off of his back. Since my goal here is not to shame anybody nor create a stink...I will not post it here on this thread....I can, I suppose... find it again & direct folks to a pdf of that statement if anyone desires, although I warn that its semantics are not particularly measured. 

_I reiterate that my question was - how can one reconcile being a pigeon lover yet be OK with pigeon shoots ? And I came to this question after reading that statement._ So...for those of you coming in and claiming that there is nothing which warranted such an unfair query, all I can do is offer you this (although I would have rather had Warren engage it directly initially).

While I appreciate parts of the replies here, and indeed good points have been made (albeit interspersed with quite a bit of factual inaccuracy) ...the issue is becoming clouded and as Trees noted, personal barbs are being flung.

Back to the statement I have quoted above - because it gets to the crux of the problem. This usually happens when one interprets the goals of an organization or movement in a certain way. Please re-read the excerpt quoted above.

In this instance, Warren views animal rights groups as wanting to "diminish the rights of farmers, hunters, and pigeon fanciers within the commonwealth".

Question to the Forum: do you all really believe this is the purpose of animal rights groups ? This is a BIG question...because as some others have noted in this thread and elsewhere...that is an incredibly specious argument to make.

Do you all really believe that animal rights groups are intent on doing this ? Or intent on controlling what we eat....or intent on denying we humans or rights....etc ?

Is that really what they strive for ???

OR...is the goal of animal rights advocacy to make the public aware that animals are sentient beings.... and that they suffer a lot of cruelty and inhumane treatment at the hands of humans ? And that oftentimes such cruelties go under the radar of the general public and therefore need to be brought to light...?

Which of the above 2 possibilities seems the more likely goal of animal welfare advocates ?

...because if you lean towards the first interpretation...then one would be inclined to react in a more knee-jerk fashion and lash out at the very organizations which you may well have more in common with than in contrast. You may even, as in the case of Warren...want to align yourselves with groups which possess completely antithetical views to your own (regarding the humane and respectful treatment of animals).

And THIS...is my point. How does one get THERE ???

It is a matter of asking oneself: is it the intent of animal rights advocates which I am against...? or is it the methods I find disagreeable ?

But in order to get to that Q...you have to really look at the goals and intent.

In this instance, it appears that some here (and more elsewhere) have a very skewed idea of what the goals of animal rights advocacy is...and therefore have staked a position contrary to their true feelings as pigeon-fanciers or animal-lovers.

And this is apparent in several replies here...it is that very quality of the replies. They bank right...they bank left...they say one thing then swing to another. Say you feel this way then trumpet a position which is the opposite. Put 2 things on equal footing which are not on equal footing...all as a rationalization to stake a firm position on something.

I find that interesting and worthy of mention....



SmithFamilyLoft said:


> So, *NO, I am not in favor of, nor do I like pigeon shoots*. But, I also don't like laws which prohibit the keeping of pigeons in one's back yard.


Fair enough...but are these apples and apples ? Does one automatically cancel out the other ? Does supporting one.... make you have to support the other ? Are these of equal severity ? Is it fair to equate these ?


*If groups are against pigeon shoots...and YOU claim also to be against pigeon shoots...then would there not be some common ground here ?????*

If you felt that pigeon shoots were immoral and wrong, but felt that keeping a loft or racing was not.....do you have to go throw your lot in with those opposed to animal rights advocacy ? Is the only conclusion you can draw, this: _these are 'radical' groups intent on 'mob rule' _and I must stand against them (when in fact at the heart, you may have more in common with them than you admit) ????

Would a more apt reaction perhaps be: 

_Pigeon shoots are wrong, I support y'all on that. But lofts and racing, contrary to your current position, are primarily done by folks who care about their birds. I would like to invite you around to demonstrate this._

Why is there this necessity for being so strident and polar ?


----------



## Charis (Feb 11, 2007)

It's really an easy question, as I see it...You are either against pigeons shoots or you are not against pigeon shoots.
If you are against them...please... be courageous and stand up against them.


----------



## c.hert (Jan 15, 2010)

I am totally against them....c.hert


----------

