No taxidermists in the Bay State?

Submitted by Cecil Baird on 10/10/01. ( jjbaird )


Although I like some things about your state and used to live there as a kid you sure do have one liberal state. I'm surprised they haven't outlawed taxidermists. I've never seen so much bureaucracy and wasted revenue. The only other state that could be more liberal is New York.

I actually spend about 2 weeks out there almost every June and fish for bluegills most of the natives consider trashfish. I also found a pond that produces 2 pound crappies (calico bass).

As far as doing taxidermy in your state I actually considered moving back to Mass and doing that for the reason you mentioned. However, I'm not so sure many people hunt and fish anymore in your state. I've seen a lot of yuppies in their sport untility vehicles that are fishing wanna bes, but they don't seen to know the difference between a bluegill and bass.

Not knocking your state, but I know where you are coming from.



Return to Category Menu


This response submitted by Tony Finazzo on 10/10/01. ( )

Cecil, help me out here. What the heck are you talking about?

Hello Cecil

This response submitted by Richard on 10/11/01. ( )

Where is the pond with the two pound Crappies ? I haven't caught one this summer that i couldn't hold up to the sun not see through it .
The state won't have to outlaw taxidermy just make it impossible to own a gun, restrict discharge of firearms in more and more towns, trapping is for the most part illeagal, these liberal dems want to reclassify the BOW as a firearm so it can't be discharge in these same towns. Taxidermy will just go by the wayside as these restrictions get tougher and tougher. There are houses built up to the salt marsh edges and ocean shore edges. The homeowners call the police and complain the noise of the shots wake their yuppie asses up.
You have my permission to knock my state , i'm getting tired of doing it , there is no hope.

Iím Swamped today but I was stupid enough toÖ.

This response submitted by marty on 10/11/01. ( )

Ötake a peek at the board and of course seeing this post I HAD to put my two cents in. And the big problem is I could easily make this a 4+ page post on this subject and the adjacent subjects that this topic touches upon. But, Iíll do my best to keep it to the Readers Digest versionÖ

BTW, my political beliefs have NOTHING to do with the current scenario with the Taliban, etc. I, as should every American, am against these terrorists 100%. And, I also think NOW is the time to come together regardless of political beliefs in the fight against these gutless individuals.

First of all, I must say that although NOT politically correct on THIS forum (Iím WAY outnumbered) I must inform you all that I did attend a Liberal Arts college and although I am not a full-blown liberal I am definitely leaning that way. So I do expect to get shot-down here - but thatís okayÖ

First of all, Iíd have to say that Cecil (and many otherís) incorrectly mix the terms ìliberalî with ìbureaucracyî, ìbig-governmentî and ìwasted revenueî. I beg to differ... big government, the World Bank, IMF, WTO and Big Corporations have absolutely nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative. [Although (indirectly) by voting in an abundance of conservatives through the years (IMHO), combined with greed has contributed to the problem] These elitist organizations, including the folks in OUR government are ALL profit driven. Period. They could give a rats behind about the environment and many other issues as long as their pockets get fuller. The United States ìhelpsî many deprived countries by pumping in cash to help their economy (or so they say). The fact of the matter is the United States charges astronomical ìloan sharkî (ie: economic reform) interests rates on these loans to these countries so that they NEVER get out of debt and in fact become MORE poverty stricken. The United States simply wants to control these countries along with the ìbig pictureî. Between 1960 and the 1990ís, the gap in per capita income tripled between residents of developing countries and residents of industrial countries. At the end of the 20th century, there were 475 billionaires in the world. Their wealth was greater than the total income of the poorest half of humanity, who number approximately 3 billion. And, WE can all say that WE have contributed to the problemÖ

Our government/society in general has taken a very apathetic view towards the environment and many other big issues. I donít believe that it has been a conscious effort though. I think it stems from the ìmeî society. ìLetís get richer NOW and let the folks down the road worry about the environmentî seems to be the attitude. It also stems from not wanting to lose votes and/or spend a lot of money. Thatís never been politically correct. They allow big corporations to pollute our environment because all theyíre worried about is power and money. Again, itís all about money and power. Has been for decades/centuriesÖ

Now, someone spoke about the yuppies having sport utes and everything and thatís all fine and dandy. Thatís the ìAmerican Wayî. Or should I say thatís the intent of the meaning our forefathers envisioned of the ìAmerican Wayî. Now, that phrase has a much diminished meaning. Everybody should have a chance to be free and also have a chance of being successful in order to afford that sport ute. Unfortunately, because of our current and past government, BILLIONS of people are NEVER getting that chance. In fact, if theyíre lucky, theyíll land a job making shoes for 30 cents an hour to help make ends meet. While the company that sells them is making a hundred bucks per/pair in profit! And, of course our country supports itÖ

Now, in general Iím AGAINST big government and Iím against more controls. But I also see that there is a drastic need for change (hence the definition of Liberal). I see lakes I fished as a kid in northern Minnesota now posting warnings on the consumption of certain fish. I see the state of Iowa being responsible for ~ 1/4th of the detrimental pesticides running off into the Mighty Miss. I voted for George Bush, but I voted for him because of his issues on Gun Control (pretty selfish huh?). Or should I say Goreís issues on Gun control. I considered Bush the lesser of two evils. Bushís stance/past history on environmental issues is atrocious. His track history of education was also in the toilet. Two issues that he really brought home in his campaign ñ ha! Granted, I think heís doing a good job given the current scenario. But, if you think about it, just about anybody would perform as well if forced into that position. He, Like Mr. Clinton are great speakers and carry themselves well in front of people. That is why they became presidents. BTW, I did NOT vote for Clinton. He was/is an evil, evil personÖ

So, Iíd have to say that there is a definite need for change. Weíve been screwing up OUR world for decades. Everybody should have the opportunity to buy that Sport Ute or open their Taxidermy shop. They shouldnít have to worry about where their next meal is coming from. IMHO, the liberals are the ONLY ones trying to make a difference. Conservatists in this country sit on their fat conservative, apathetic behinds and whine about gun control. Simply stated, there are much bigger issues at stake here. Who gives a hoot about gun control if thereís no place on this planet to thrive to be able to even worry about gun control? Open your eyes America. Look at the statistics/facts. In 1995 the IMF ìhelpedî Mexico with itsí Peso bailout. Since then, the number of Mexicans in poverty has increased by 50%. And the minimum wage has dropped by 20%. This has happened and is happening all over our world because of US!

Personally, I think these bigger issues will eventually take precedence over someones political stance. Itís simply much more important. There will be no liberals and conservatists, only ìenvironmentalistsî. Besides, I donít believe that these titles are black and white. There are MANY people like me that are somewhere in the middle with all the issues. But, I think we can all agree that the environment and OUR world (not the United States governmentsí world) is the most important issue of all.

What can you do? I feel the best actions are to get involved with your local politicians. Listen to what theyíre stance is on environmental issues. Then, VOTE! I feel that we are almost at the same scenario as we were during Vietnam. (But, I must admit that I believe much of the protesting stemmed around trying to avoid being drafted/sent to Vietnam.) We really need a leader like Martin Luther King to help organize and get the word out about these issues. The problem is we donít have anybody like MLK ñ he was truly a gifted individual. So, by supporting the right politicians maybe eventually will have an impact on achieving some of the things Iíve talked about. (And, maybe states like Massachusetts/New York should be pushing for politicians with a more conservative approach. Again, weíre looking for a happy midpointÖ)

BTW, I am NOT, nor will I ever be a supporter of the NRA. Unless they make some drastic changes. They are definitely too far on the extreme for my taste. I do not believe lumping in everbodysí right to own a Saturday Night Special, buying AK47ís thru mail order mags (minus a spring that can be purchased at Ace hardware) should be lumped in with huntersí ability to use shotguns for sporting purposes. Charlton Heston and his hard core stances on the issues is perceived by the bulk of America as very radical and much of his credibility is tossed out the window because of all the issues being black and white to him (and the NRA). I believe that people should have the right to bare arms and defend themselves but some of these weapons the NRA fights for is simply wrong in my mindÖ

Now, many of you will probably say ìif you donít like things why donít you move to another countryî? Well, that simply is a defeatist attitude. I donít believe crawling under a rock and pretending that things like this arenít going on is the answer. Change is good/necessary to evolve as humans and as a country/world. I believe that posts like this and the responses/differences of opinion are good for America. Issues are placed on the table and through the varying opinions one can draw their own conclusions. I also believe that liberals are good for our society. As are conservatives ñ to keep the liberals in check and visa versa. Liberals in general do tend to have more of an open mind when discussing issues and they represent the other end of the extreme. Many people when mentioning ìliberalsî sound as if theyíre the enemy (and visa versa) Liberals are really the only ones out there putting the effort in to try and make changes in our society along with global changes. I believe this country/world is in dire need for some fairly drastic change - from an environmental standpoint AND a humanitarian standpoint. We really donít have time to sit on the fence and be apathetic for another 30+ years. And, regardless if you believe in everything/anything liberals are trying to achieve or not. You have to respect the fact that these folks are at least trying to make a differenceÖ

Sorry about the funky symbols...

This response submitted by marty on 10/11/01. ( )

I cut and paste this from a Word doc. Something must've inadvertantly got hit when I did so. I could re-post, but I think it's readible and I don't want to be taking up any more server space... sorry...

Sorry again!

This response submitted by marty on 10/11/01. ( )

it IS difficult to read. I'll repost above in it's own topic...

Getting that way all over

This response submitted by Glenn on 10/11/01. ( )

I spent several months in Mass back in 1967. (Cecil - I was stationed
at Devens then - most lasting memory was a seriously polluted river
not far from post that you could almost walk on the surface and had
to cross over on two cable strands during 3 day maneuvers prior to going
to 'Nam for my first tour)and also spent a week in Boston one night.
A reservist from my basic training unit lived in Dorchester and his
father was a retired 1-star so I could pretty much get off the base
on weekends and afternoons instead of pulling duty. Went to the Cape
and drove around the country side - did a little fishing in some
ponds and streams my friend knew. Where I lived in Jersey was similiar back
then but is now just about wall-to-wall people (homes/strip malls/condos/roads).
Even in what the yuppies consider 'rural' you can't hunt because of
distance restrictions (450' from an occupied building - even if you could
find a 900 foot circle of clear land between buildings you'd have to stand
in the very center and couldn't take a step in any direction). At
the 1980 Trapper's Convention in Rutland Vermont the guys from out
West were already referring to Jersey as the 'Blacktop State'. We've
also been hit with the 'non discharge of a firearm' crap. They can't
outright ban hunting because only the State has the authority to
do that (at least for now) so they skirt around it with phony public
safety issues. I hope this isn't a peek at the future for the rest
of the country.

Good luck and God help us.


Marty if that's the readers digest version...

This response submitted by Cecil Baird on 10/11/01. ( )

I'd hate to have you do the sermon at my church. There wouldn't be any daylight left after church. However, thanks for the clarification although I didn't read the whole thing. Most people don't go past three paragraphs -- so if you want someone to read it keep that in mind.


Cecil, I know, I know...

This response submitted by marty on 10/11/01. ( )

And it doesn't help that some of the characters are displaying improperly. I'm waiting on Ken for that one.

Unfortunately, the issues that I touched upon cannot be shortened a whole heck of a lot w/o losing something. I will try to repost it once the bugs get worked out. I would hope that folks will at least start to read the post as once they get into it there are some issues that should peek enough interest to read the rest of it. At least I hope so...

Return to Category Menu