Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 5/20/2005 10:08:17 AM EDT
SHAKOPEE, MN—A popular female stock car driver is using her car to help promote the nation’s largest anti-hunting organization.

Kari Miller, a short-track race car driver who competes in the NASCAR Weekly Racing Series, has added a Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sticker to her car’s sponsor decals. Miller is promoting the group’s “Give Wildlife a Brake” campaign, which is meant to help drivers avoid collisions with wildlife and educate them about helping injured animals along the roadside.

For more information, visit www.huntingclub.com.



Next she'll be joining the Dixie Chicks.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:11:20 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:12:37 AM EDT
Welcome to the "New Nascar"!

(Now accepting WIC checks)
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:12:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
She's pretty damn cute. Can her mind be saved from the ravages of the breadborne pathogen that's been going around, that caused her to go antihunting?



Maybe, but we'd certainly have to isolate her from the PETA types to reverse the brain washing.....
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:15:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Welcome to the "New Nascar"!

(Now accepting WIC checks)




What does WIC stand for, Women In Chanclas
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:15:33 AM EDT
Yep, "Brake for Wildlife".... get into more accidents, etc. than if you'd just ran into Bambi and been
done with it.

Ah, hell, more practice for the hydraulic spreaders, I guess.....
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:19:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 10:20:25 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Welcome to the "New Nascar"!

(Now accepting WIC checks)



Gee you must have missed Remington, Realtree, ect. as NASCAR sponsors. Driver involvement in hunting, NRA ect…

Never heard of her… I know NASCAR very well, she must be in a regional series.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:21:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
She's pretty damn cute.



Find a full-body pic - your opinion of her attractiveness may change. Mine did.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:25:15 AM EDT
I'll have compassion for that "Bambi" that I just hit with my truck.............I won't hesitate to put it out of it's misery with my CC weapon.


Just goes to show ya how NASCAR has changed. Ten years ago this chick would have been laughed off the track and out of the parking lot.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:25:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Welcome to the "New Nascar"!

(Now accepting WIC checks)



Gee you must have missed Remington, Realtree, ect. as NASCAR sponsors. Driver involvement in hunting, NRA ect…

Never heard of her… I know NASCAR very well, she must be in a regional series.



I don't believe NASCAR can be held responsible for this. It's just this particular Driver. She has a right to get sponsorship from whomever she wants. However I think, knowing she is sponsored by the HSUS would be enough for her to lose a lot of support from fans, potential new fans and other sponsors.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:26:04 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Welcome to the "New Nascar"!

(Now accepting WIC checks)



Gee you must have missed Remington, Realtree, ect. as NASCAR sponsors. Driver involvement in hunting, NRA ect…

Never heard of her… I know NASCAR very well, she must be in a regional series.



Not at all, the old Nascar respected tradition (like taking off for Mother's Day, no hard booze etc.)

Now that is all out the window in a mad dash for cash, as the old is kicked to the curb (ignoring that the advertisers enjoyed by far the greatest brand loyalty from a dedicated fan base) Brian France (& his handlers from Fox) are gonna cook that golden goose, as short-attention span fans move on to the next fad.

Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:32:23 AM EDT
What am I missing? ALl I see is that she supports a group that is trying to get fewer animals run over on the road. How is that anti-hunting? Unless you hunt with your truck...

This is why the left can get almost any gun-enthusiasts arguments ignored. Crazy shit like this gets amplified in the debate and makes the entire pro-gun camp look like idiots.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:33:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 10:36:14 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Merrell:

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By Merrell:
Welcome to the "New Nascar"!

(Now accepting WIC checks)



Gee you must have missed Remington, Realtree, ect. as NASCAR sponsors. Driver involvement in hunting, NRA ect…

Never heard of her… I know NASCAR very well, she must be in a regional series.



Not at all, the old Nascar respected tradition (like taking off for Mother's Day, no hard booze etc.)

Now that is all out the window in a mad dash for cash, as the old is kicked to the curb (ignoring that the advertisers enjoyed by far the greatest brand loyalty from a dedicated fan base) Brian France (& his handlers from Fox) are gonna cook that golden goose, as short-attention span fans move on to the next fad.




NASCAR took Mothers Day off this year… the race was Saturday.

The difference between beer, tobacco and Viagra sponsors vs hard liquor escapes me.

Change happens, I don’t like all of it but it is inevitable.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:36:09 AM EDT

WWWBD?

What Would Ward Burton Do?



Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:37:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 10:37:20 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By DrMark:
WWWBD?

What Would Ward Burton Do?




He would stuff her.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:39:16 AM EDT
the Viagra stuff pissed a lot of fans off, the last few seasons I watched was an endless parade of weiner drug commercials, making it less of a "family sport"

Also, the crowds are shifting demographically and sociologically, where it once was relatively self-policing, where people might get a bit looped but would still be polite, it's starting down the path to the gutter fans that you have to deal with at NFL games and the like, screaming profanities the whole way through.

Nascar might have been more redneck in those days, but I'll take that over cheap n trashy any day of the week.

YMMV
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:41:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 10:42:04 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By Merrell:
the Viagra stuff pissed a lot of fans off, the last few seasons I watched was an endless parade of weiner drug commercials, making it less of a "family sport"

Also, the crowds are shifting demographically and sociologically, where it once was relatively self-policing, where people might get a bit looped but would still be polite, it's starting down the path to the gutter fans that you have to deal with at NFL games and the like, screaming profanities the whole way through.

Nascar might have been more redneck in those days, but I'll take that over cheap n trashy any day of the week.

YMMV



You have some valid points, I still like it.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:42:00 AM EDT
NASCAR just won't be the same when they lose the pro-wrestling demographic...
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:42:11 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:42:51 AM EDT
Time for a new Token.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:44:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
NASCAR just won't be the same when they lose the pro-wrestling demographic...



Thank you for the childish and irrelevant input.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:47:39 AM EDT
oh it was fun (and probably still is) I just got weary of the crass overcommercialization of what was already a saturated (with advertising) sport.

Don't know if you remember the ESPN days with Nascar, but they were head & shoulders above the crap dished out by Fox & NBC every week. The sport is being dumbed down, presumably to attract a wider audience (which it may very well be doing). The history is being flushed, as older smaller tracks are given crap race dates, then have their races pulled (and given to Vegas, Texas, California or one of the boring cookie cutter tracks) for more profitable venues.

If you are into it, I highly recommend catching races at the older tracks before they pass into history (Martinsville, Darlington etc.) I had been to Daytona, 'dega, Michigan, Richmond, Bristol, Charlotte, Indy and wished I would have caught the ones with character (like N. Wilkesboro or Rockingham) - they might not have had the smooth facilities of a Penske or Smith operation, but they were real. Now it just seems like canned entertainment, more WWF than racing.

Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:49:20 AM EDT
Kari is proud to announce her partnership with the Humane Society of the United States.  Kari has been a member of the HSUS since 1999.  Kari will be promoting the GIVE WILDLIFE A BRAKE campaign to bring awareness to watching out for wildlife on the road.


Her car......


Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:56:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 10:58:00 AM EDT by sniper1az]
And I'll wager she doesn't EVEN give blow jobs!

Can't even qualify to be a spitter!

DAMN FEMINAZIS!!
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:59:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
NASCAR just won't be the same when they lose the pro-wrestling demographic...


WWE/NASCAR!
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:05:33 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 11:09:53 AM EDT by hardcase]
How about a link to this "story?"

Have you tried the link in the story? It goes to the North American Hunting Club, not to HSUS.

Note the dateline, Shakopee, MN. That is a southwestern suburb of Minneapolis, MN. The suburbs of Minneapolis/St. Paul are VERY Republican, unlike the cities themselves. Our main problem with the libs is the big city liberals, the unionists on the Iron Range, and the .gov and university employees.

Shakopee does have a small, quarter mile, I think, NASCAR dirt track. It's no different than the little tracks in a lot of other small towns. I don't follow that series, but I get the impression that it's nothing very impressive.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:08:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
NASCAR just won't be the same when they lose the pro-wrestling demographic...



Thank you for the childish and irrelevant input.



Neither childish or irrelevant, just facts.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:26:31 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:29:37 AM EDT
Straight from HSUS' website:

Hunting



There once was a time when most Americans needed to hunt to put food on the table, but hunting today is a recreational pastime, and worse: waterfowl, pheasant, and dove hunting are no more than shooting at living targets. Some hunting is done solely to acquire trophies or to see who can kill the most; some is no more than shooting tame, confined animals. Brutally inhumane weapons such as the bow and arrow are increasingly used. In all cases, sport hunting inflicts undeniable cruelty—pain, trauma, wounding, and death—on living, sentient creatures. The Humane Society of the United States believes that causing suffering and death is by definition inhumane, regardless of method.

More than 100 million animals are reported killed by hunters each year. That number does not include the millions of animals for which kill figures are not maintained by state wildlife agencies.

The vast majority of species that are hunted—waterfowl, upland birds, mourning doves, squirrels, raccoons, rabbits, crows, coyotes, etc.—provide minimal sustenance and do not require population control.

Hunters have strived for decades to convince the American public that hunting is good for wildlife and good for society, often with arguments that are based on obfuscation and half-truths. They have deliberately focused the debate on deer hunting, for which plausible, but not necessarily true, arguments for subsistence and management can be made. But the holes in their arguments are becoming increasingly apparent, as is the magnitude of their waste, cruelty and destruction. More than that, sport hunting—the killing of wild animals as recreation—is fundamentally at odds with the values of a humane, just and caring society.


Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:31:18 AM EDT


Fall is the time when forest greens begin to blaze orange, as hunting seasons open around the country. Each year, hunters kill more than 100 million animals, and while individual reasons for hunting vary, the industry that promotes and sustains hunting has just one motive: profit. According to the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, America's 14 million hunters spend $22.1 billion each year for guns, ammunition, clothing, travel, and other related expenses.
To justify hunting to a society ever more concerned about wildlife—including its conservation and humane treatment—the industry intensively promotes a set of tired myths. Learn the facts behind these myths.

Isn't hunting a worthy tradition because it teaches people about nature?

There are many ways to learn about nature and the "great outdoors." At its best, hunting teaches people that it is acceptable to kill wildlife while learning about some aspects of nature. However, the very essence of sport hunting is the implicit message that it's acceptable recreation to kill and to tolerate the maiming of wildlife. Even those who claim that wounding and maiming is not the intent of hunting cannot deny that it happens.

It is folly to suggest that we can teach love, respect, and appreciation for nature and the environment through such needless destruction of wildlife. One can learn about nature by venturing into the woods with binoculars, a camera, a walking stick, or simply with our eyes and ears open to the world around us.

Does hunting help create a bond between father and son?

We do not know, but there are countless recreational and other activities that can strengthen the parent/child bond. Generally speaking, bonding has less to do with the activity and more to do with whether the parent and child spend significant, concentrated, and loving time together. Yet the particular recreational activity is also important, because it can send a moral message to the child about what constitutes acceptable recreation.

Hunting as a form of family entertainment is destructive not only to the animals involved, but also to the morals and ethics of children who are shown or taught that needless killing is acceptable recreation. The HSUS rejects the notion that a relationship of love and companionship should be based on the needless killing of innocent creatures. Killing for fun teaches callousness, disrespect for life, and the notion that "might makes right."

Isn't hunting a popular and growing form of recreation?

No. The number of hunters has been steadily declining for decades. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there were 15 million licensed hunters in the U.S. in 2000, compared with 15.6 million in 1993, 15.8 million in 1990, and 16.3 million in 1980. This drop has occurred even while the general population has been growing. Currently only 5.4% of Americans hold hunting licenses. Hunters claim their numbers are growing to give the impression that recreational killing is acceptable. The facts are that more and more hunters are giving up hunting because it is no longer a socially acceptable activity.

What are state wildlife agencies doing to maintain interest in hunting?

Most states actively recruit children into hunting, through special youth hunts. Sometimes these youth hunts are held on National Wildlife Refuges. Some states have carried this concept even further, and hold special hunter education classes to recruit parents and their children. In addition to encouraging children to buy licenses and kill animals, the states are reaching out to women as well. If enough women and children can be converted into hunters, the state agencies can continue business as usual.

Isn't hunting a well-regulated activity?

No. While there are many rules which regulate hunting activities, enforcing the regulations is difficult, and many hunters do not abide by the rules. It has been estimated that twice as many deer are killed illegally as are killed legally. Hunters will sometimes kill a second deer because it has bigger antlers or "rack" than the first. In addition, duck hunters often exceed their bag limits or kill protected species because most hunters cannot identify the species of ducks that they shoot—especially not at a half hour before sunrise, when shooting begins. Secret observations revealed by ex-duck hunters demonstrate that illegal practices and killing permeate this activity at all levels.

Aren't animals protected through "bag limits" imposed by each state?

Those species favored by hunters are given certain protection from over-killing—killing so many as to severely limit the population—through what are known as "bag limits." However, hunting of some species is completely unregulated, and in fact, wanton killing is encouraged. Animals such as skunks, coyotes, porcupines, crows and prairie dogs are considered "varmints," and unlimited hunting of these species is permitted year-round in many states. At the base of this is the notion that these animals are simply "vermin" and do not deserve to live. Hunters frequently write and speak of the pleasure in "misting" prairie dogs—by which they mean shooting the animals with hollow-point bullets that cause them to literally explode in a mist of blood.

Moreover, hunters' influence on state and federal wildlife agencies is so strong that even bag limits on "game" species are influenced as much by politics as by biology. Many states, with the sanction of the federal government, allow hunters to kill large numbers (20–40 per day) of coots and waterfowl such as sea ducks and mergansers, for example, despite the fact that little is known about their populations and their ability to withstand hunting pressure, and the fact that these ducks are certainly not killed for food. This killing is encouraged to maintain hunter interest, thereby sustaining license sales, because the decline in other duck species has resulted in some limitations on numbers that can be killed.

Isn't it more humane to kill wildlife by hunting than to allow animals to starve?

This question is based on a false premise. Hunters kill opossums, squirrels, ravens, and numerous other plentiful species without any notion of shooting them so that they do not starve or freeze to death. Many species are killed year round in unlimited numbers. In addition, many animals that are not hunted die of natural starvation, but hunters do not suggest killing them. While it is true that any animal killed by a hunter cannot die of starvation, hunters do not kill animals based on which ones are weak and likely to succumb to starvation. Hunters who claim they prevent animals from suffering starvation are simply trying to divert attention from an analysis of the propriety of killing wildlife for fun.

Aren't most hunts to limit overpopulation and not truly for recreation?

No. Most hunted species are not considered to be overpopulated even by the wildlife agencies that set seasons and bag limits. Black ducks, for instance, face continued legal hunting—even on National Wildlife Refuges—despite the fact that their populations are at or near all-time lows. If hunters claim that they hunt to prevent overpopulation, then they should be prepared to forgo hunting except when it really is necessary to manage overpopulated species. This would mean no hunting of doves, ducks, geese, raccoons, bears, cougars, turkeys, quail, chuckar, pheasants, rabbits, squirrels, and many other species.

What's more, hunters are usually the first to protest when wolves, coyotes, and other predators move into an area and begin to take over the job of controlling game populations. The State of Alaska, for example, has instituted wolf-control (trapping and shooting) on the grounds that wolf predation may bring caribou populations down to a level that would limit the sport-hunting of caribou. Finally, hunters kill opossums, foxes, ravens, and numerous other plentiful species without the pretension of shooting them so that they do not starve or freeze to death.

Is hunting to prevent wildlife overpopulation usually effective?

No. Wildlife, to a large degree, will naturally regulate its own populations if permitted, eliminating any need for hunting as a means of population control. Discussions about supposed wildlife overpopulation problems apply primarily to deer. Hunters often claim that hunting is necessary to control deer populations. As practiced, however, hunting often contributes to the growth of deer herds. Heavily hunted states like Pennsylvania and Ohio, for instance, are among those experiencing higher deer densities than perhaps ever before. When an area's deer population is reduced by hunting, the remaining animals respond by having more young, which survive because the competition for food and habitat is reduced. Since one buck can impregnate many does, policies which permit the killing of bucks contribute to high deer populations. If population control were the primary purpose for conducting deer hunts, hunters would only be permitted to kill does. This is not the case, however, because hunters demand that they be allowed to kill bucks for their antlers.

Does hunting ensure stable, healthy wildlife populations?

No. The hunting community's idea of a "healthy" wildlife population is a population managed like domestic livestock, for maximum productivity. In heavily hunted and "managed" populations, young animals feed on artificially enhanced food sources, grow and reproduce rapidly, then fall quickly to the guns and arrows of hunters. Few animals achieve full adulthood. After 20 years of heavy deer hunting at the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, for example, only one percent of the deer population lived longer than four years, and fewer than ten percent lived longer than three years. In a naturally regulated population, deer often live twelve years or longer.

Though hunting clearly kills individual animals, can hunting actually hurt wildlife populations?

Yes. Hunters continue to kill many species of birds and mammals (e.g., cougars, wolves, black ducks, swans) that are at dangerously low population levels. While hunting may not be the prime cause of the decline of these species, it must contribute to their decline and, at a minimum, frustrate efforts to restore them.

Even deer populations may be damaged by hunting pressure. Unlike natural predators and the forces of natural selection, hunters do not target the weaker individuals in populations of deer or other animals.

Rather, deer hunters seek out the bucks that have the largest rack. This desire for "trophy sized" bucks can and has had detrimental effects on the health of deer herds. First, hunting can impact the social structure of a herd because hunters kill the mature males of a herd and create a disproportionate ratio of females to males. It is not uncommon to find a herd that has no bucks over the age of three. Second, genetically inferior bucks may be left to propagate the species, thereby weakening the overall health of the herd.

Because hunters largely want to shoot only bucks, hunting may cause artificial inflation of deer populations. When these populations reach levels that available habitat cannot support, increased disease and starvation may be the result.

We don't understand the full effect of hunting on wildlife behavior or health because wildlife agencies will not conduct the studies necessary to find the answers (e.g., "spy-blind" observations of duck hunting, in which undercover authorities secretly observe hunters).

Is hunting for food a good way to save money on grocery bills?

Almost never. When all costs are considered (i.e., license fees, equipment, food, lodging and transportation), hunting is not an economical way to provide food. Statistics gathered by the University of Maryland's Extension Service revealed that hunters spent more than $51 million to kill 46,317 deer in Maryland in 1990, approximately $1,100 for each deer killed. Assuming that the meat of each deer killed was preserved and eaten, and that each deer provided 45 lbs. of meat, the cost of venison in 1990 in Maryland was $24.44 per pound. For most hunted animals, such as ducks, doves, rabbits, squirrels, and crows, among others, use for food is now minimal, and the expense of equipment far outweighs the value of any food that is obtained. For the vast majority of hunters, hunting is recreation, not a means of gathering food.


Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:32:48 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 11:46:36 AM EDT by ArmedAggie]
never mind the fact that if it weren't for all the "new" fans people bitch about NASCAR would still be a low-budget hick "sport" with a fan following stright out of Deliverance, if it still existed at all.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:33:36 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 11:34:56 AM EDT by TacticalMan]
I'd run her into the wall every chance I had.

Sorry, I don't suffer fools like that, I torpedo them.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:35:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Boomer:


Hunting as a form of family entertainment is destructive not only to the animals involved, but also to the morals and ethics of children who are shown or taught that needless killing is acceptable recreation.





I'll bet a couple of the old timers would rattle her cage if they heard the crap her sponsor is pushing...

Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:48:08 AM EDT
This chick, if this is real at all, won't be around long. Those type of idealists are never very good competitors. They won't win so they'll quit and claim everyone conspired against her. I wouldn't sweat it.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 11:54:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tanker06:
Yep, "Brake for Wildlife".... get into more accidents, etc. than if you'd just ran into Bambi and been
done with it.




Too true. One of my buddies is on lifesupport right now because he rolled his car dodging a deer on the turnpike.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 12:20:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
What am I missing? ALl I see is that she supports a group that is trying to get fewer animals run over on the road. How is that anti-hunting? Unless you hunt with your truck...

This is why the left can get almost any gun-enthusiasts arguments ignored. Crazy shit like this gets amplified in the debate and makes the entire pro-gun camp look like idiots.



Aggie, the HSUS is not the same organization as your local Humane Society that takes care of lost or abandone pets and encourages spay an nuetaring etc. etc.

The Humane Society of the United States is a group that walks hand in hand with PETA and serves as a less radical lobbying group for both PETA and ALF. HSUS was the largest Lobbying influence in the State of AZ that helped pass the ban on Trapping and they were the most active protestors at the AZ Trappers Association Conventions and Fur Auctions.

The HSUS group having a project to reduce the number of animals injured by vehicles is as much a front to get interest and funding as the Brady Foundation giving out Trigger Locks.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:06:45 PM EDT
So hot, yet so stupid.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:26:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
What am I missing? ALl I see is that she supports a group that is trying to get fewer animals run over on the road. How is that anti-hunting? Unless you hunt with your truck...

This is why the left can get almost any gun-enthusiasts arguments ignored. Crazy shit like this gets amplified in the debate and makes the entire pro-gun camp look like idiots.



Aggie, the HSUS is not the same organization as your local Humane Society that takes care of lost or abandone pets and encourages spay an nuetaring etc. etc.

The Humane Society of the United States is a group that walks hand in hand with PETA and serves as a less radical lobbying group for both PETA and ALF. HSUS was the largest Lobbying influence in the State of AZ that helped pass the ban on Trapping and they were the most active protestors at the AZ Trappers Association Conventions and Fur Auctions.

The HSUS group having a project to reduce the number of animals injured by vehicles is as much a front to get interest and funding as the Brady Foundation giving out Trigger Locks.



Not so easy to see when all you post is a blurb about :Brake for Animals" campaign (ties in with a NASCAR driver) and a statement about how it's anti-hunting. I expect no less support for a statement here than I would if I were watching CNN.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 1:28:01 PM EDT
Yeah she is going to have a big fan base.........
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 4:27:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1GUNRUNNER:

Originally Posted By:

SPECTRE, Neither childish or irrelevant, just facts.



Sigline material there.



You may have something here.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 4:30:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/20/2005 4:31:01 PM EDT by ScaryGuy]
If she races in the South much, and she's vocally anti-hunting, she'd best get used to hitting the wall.

Alot.

SG
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 4:49:29 PM EDT
She may be cute and I'd probably grudgefuck her, but it sounds like she is worthless cunt to me.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 7:04:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Yeah she is going to have a big fan base.........



That's the point. Knowing ist half the battle.
Link Posted: 5/20/2005 10:25:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:

Originally Posted By sysop:

Originally Posted By ArmedAggie:
What am I missing? ALl I see is that she supports a group that is trying to get fewer animals run over on the road. How is that anti-hunting? Unless you hunt with your truck...

This is why the left can get almost any gun-enthusiasts arguments ignored. Crazy shit like this gets amplified in the debate and makes the entire pro-gun camp look like idiots.



Aggie, the HSUS is not the same organization as your local Humane Society that takes care of lost or abandone pets and encourages spay an nuetaring etc. etc.

The Humane Society of the United States is a group that walks hand in hand with PETA and serves as a less radical lobbying group for both PETA and ALF. HSUS was the largest Lobbying influence in the State of AZ that helped pass the ban on Trapping and they were the most active protestors at the AZ Trappers Association Conventions and Fur Auctions.

The HSUS group having a project to reduce the number of animals injured by vehicles is as much a front to get interest and funding as the Brady Foundation giving out Trigger Locks.



Not so easy to see when all you post is a blurb about :Brake for Animals" campaign (ties in with a NASCAR driver) and a statement about how it's anti-hunting. I expect no less support for a statement here than I would if I were watching CNN.



Right Aggie but there was a bit about "For more information, visit www.huntingclub.com." and the HSUS is (at least in my circles) a rather well known enemy of Hunting Rights and RKBA's. Or at least I thought they were. Perhaps next time I make a post of this nature I should provide some historical background.

On the other hand, it strikes me as odd that the HSUS is spending money to try to prevent animals from being injured or killed on the roads. It's not like the average individual goes out of his or her way to hit a deer or an opossum. What are they gunna do appoint crossing guards or post speed zones for racoon crossings? Oh yes they can raise our awarness of the problem which is always a noble endeavor but in the end what does that accomplish? It's not as if drivers are suddenly veering off the road to hit these animals. Indeed it seems to be the other way around.

So here's a news flash from the HSUS, when you are driving on a rural highway an animal may unexpectedly dart out in front of you resulting in the injury or death of the animal or yourself and whom ever is in your vehicle with you or both or all depending on the size of the animal, the speed, the size of your vehicle and your reaction.

How about a big "DUH!"
Link Posted: 5/21/2005 11:07:18 AM EDT
Yeah she races NASCAR, but not the NASCAR races everyone thinks of when they hear the phrase NASCAR race. The Mid-America Short Tracker Division at Raceway Park in Shakopee, MN is pretty damn far from the WINSTONNEXTEL Cup.



Here is her response from her webpage.


To everyone: from Kari

In regards to my sponsorship from the HSUS, I would like to say that I never knew so much controversy would evolve! The purpose of my sponsorship with the HSUS was not to offend anyone, rather to bring awareness to the GIVE WILDLIFE A BRAKE PROGRAM. I have been racing in the NASCAR Weekly Racing Series for 7 years, and my website has been up since 2003. I have never received so many emails and so many hits to my site as I have in the last 2 days. (There is a 2000% increase in hits to my site!) I would like to take this opportunity to set things straight so you can see where I'm coming from. I would greatly appreciate it if you would take the time to read what I have to say, as I have read every single email from you.

First of all, I would like to say I can appreciate your viewpoints as you are expressing your feelings about your passion, hunting and fishing. I can completely understand how you feel as I am a very passionate person when it comes to causes I believe in and things I love to do. Some emails that I received were quite threatening, others were very educational, and some were downright funny! I will be investigating the stand the HSUS takes on hunting and fishing further.

I too am a VERY OPINIONATED person, that's why I truly admire all of you who took the time to write to me! I hope that someday when my book gets published you will buy it to read more about what I think on different subjects. (Watch for my book, "Miller for President, 2012". It's supposed to be a funny title people!!! GEEZ!!)

I try to keep my personal beliefs to myself as I do not want to offend anyone, however I now feel that I am entitled to share my beliefs with you all due to the overwhelming amount of emails I've received.

OK, so here it goes...

- I have never stated anywhere that I am against hunting or fishing. I have never stated that I do not eat meat. I have never stated that I do not wear leather or use any animal products. I am NOT a vegetarian.

- I am against the cruel treatment of animals. I am against animal testing. I am against animal fighting. I LOVE ALL animals and I want them to be treated as fairly as possible. I LOVE ALL animals, including those you hunt. But just because I love them doesn't mean you can't hunt them.

- I KNOW THAT MANY NASCAR FANS AND DRIVERS ARE AVID HUNTERS AND FISHERS. Yes, I pay tribute to my biggest idol in racing, DALE EARNHARDT on my home page, and YES I know he was a huge hunter and he was endorsed and sponsored by big hunting and fishing companies. I will gladly put those companies' logos on my car if they want to support me too.

- NO my sponsorship with the HSUS is not strictly monetary. I do support the GIVE WILDLIFE A BRAKE program and I agree with it. I counted 14 dead animals on the side of the road one day on my way home! That's ridiculous!

- Yes, I am sponsored by the HSUS Give Wildlife a BRAKE (b-r-a-k-e- not break!) program. The purpose of the program is to bring awareness to wildlife on the road as you are driving. Countless animals are killed because of our carelessness as we're driving and I want to do what I can to promote this cause.

- I am aware that my race car and track and products that I use for racing may contain animal products and I am not necessarily against that.

- PETA is NOT one of my sponsors. I do have a link to their website on my site because I believe in SOME of the causes supported by PETA. (Animal testing, animal fighting, animal cruelty.)

- NO I DO NOT Support TERRORISM. I hate terrorists. I think if we all knew more of what was really going on in the government we'd come to find out we all support terrorist funded groups/companies. I wish that we were more informed of what is truly going on in our world, as we are very sheltered from the truth by our government.

- I DO feel that EVERYONE is entitled to their own opinions and that this great country is founded on freedom of speech. I really appreciate that you all are voicing your opinions - but where were you during the last election? HAHAHA! And if you have such strong beliefs about your passions, what are YOU doing to help support YOUR CAUSE? I can tell you by emailing me it won't go far because in the big scheme of things I am a nobody. But maybe someday I will be a big somebody.

- I am a local small-time race car driver trying to make a go of my passion. Yes, it would be nice to move up the racing ladder, but as you should know, it takes money. (Besides that I'm too old in today's standards of Cup or Busch series racing! I'm almost 30 for gosh sakes!) Unfortunately I have not been blessed with a fat pocketbook, or the opportunity to know anyone who has. I have no connections to anyone who can help my career, so that leaves me to do all of my own marketing. In the sport of racing the way to get money is by "marketing" yourself and your abilities to sponsors. Sponsors in turn give you money to support YOUR cause. This day in age it is VERY DIFFICULT to secure sponsorships, so when you find an organization that is willing to support you by sponsoring you, you join forces. The HSUS Give Wildlife a Brake program has given me sponsorship money because they believe in me, and they know that I need to be able to buy tires and gas to race. Their sponsorship is helping me do the thing that I love to do, racing. I am totally open to any sponsors. If your organizations want to donate to my cause of racing then we can talk and I will put your logo on my car and website and help you promote what it is that you do. I will not stop promoting myself or those who believe in me just because EVERYONE doesn't support EVERY aspect of one of my sponsors. I wish you could just try to appreciate the fact that they SPONSOR me, so if you are that upset about what they do, I suggest you contact them as your words will have greater value at the source.

Yes, I do support SOME of the causes of the HSUS.

Yes, I have been a member of the HSUS since 1999. I do donate little scraps that I can spare annually to the HSUS because they send me a picture and a sad true story of an abused animal. And since I am the passionate person that I am, but I can't afford to donate more, I send what I can because it makes ME feel good thinking that my donation will go toward saving animals who can't save themselves.

Yes, I do support my local humane societies. I also take very good care of all of my pets. They are my children and they are treated as such. I wish all animals could be treated the way I treat mine!

The bottom line is this, I love racing and I love animals. I have never said that I am for or against hunting or fishing, I even fish every year up in the Lake of the Woods. Before you people accuse me of being close-minded and a lot of other mean things I can't write here, please try to understand where I am coming from.

Oh, and for all of you who wished me bad luck, I've already won 1 race this season, and we've got a long way to go!

And I don't mind the publicity either! :) It's kind of fun getting emails from around the country! I wish more people would take the time to stand up for what they believe in! If we all did it, this country could be a lot better off!

And as far as me being a hypocrite or contradictory, whatever. I am who I am, and I have rights too. If you don't like what I'm saying you don't have to listen. I do have the right to exercise my freedom of speech, but if nobody's listening it doesn't matter. (If a tree falls in the woods but nobody hears it, does it still make noise?)

Thanks again to everyone and I hope I didn't offend you even more by trying to do what I love to do. (racing) TRUST me, my intentions started off good!

Link Posted: 5/21/2005 11:34:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2005 11:36:45 AM EDT by KA3B]




http://www.karimiller.com
www.karimiller.com
Link Posted: 5/21/2005 11:36:58 AM EDT
Yes i usually try to give said wildlife a "Break" in the spine if possible, that prevents hours of tracking, or a "break" in the vitals area that usually accomplishes the same result!!!

The only difference between shootign wild game and shooting animals rights protesters banging on pots and pans is, YOU CAN EAT THE ANIMALS!!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2005 11:39:45 AM EDT
Yes i usually try to give said wildlife a "Break" in the spine if possible, that prevents hours of tracking, or a "break" in the vitals area that usually accomplishes the same result!!!

The only difference between shootign wild game and shooting animals rights protesters banging on pots and pans is, YOU CAN EAT THE ANIMALS!!!
Link Posted: 5/21/2005 12:18:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/21/2005 12:18:23 PM EDT by Boomer]
What an idiot. Does she think people didn't TRY to avoid hitting those 14 animals she saw dead on the side of the road?
Link Posted: 5/21/2005 12:26:07 PM EDT
Race Car Driver Promotes Anti-Hunting Organization



Sportsmen’s rights are taking a backseat to animal rights as a popular female stock car driver uses her car to promote the nation’s largest anti-hunting group.

Kari Miller, a short track race car driver who competes in the NASCAR Weekly Racing Series, has added a Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) sticker to her sponsor decals. Miller is promoting the group’s Give Wildlife A Brake campaign. It is meant to help drivers avoid collisions with wildlife and educate them about helping injured animals along the roadside.

“As with many HSUS campaigns, Give Wildlife A Brake sounds innocent, lending credibility to the organization despite its true goal of ending animal use including hunting,” said U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance President Bud Pidgeon. “But sportsmen must not forget that when money is donated to a seemingly harmless HSUS program, that frees up funds for the group to invest in anti-sportsmen campaigns.”

Miller’s also plugs anti-hunting organizations on her website, www.karimiller.com. The links page directs visitors to “Some of Kari’s Favorite Sites” including HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

The 2005 racing season kicked off May 1, and thousands of spectators and fans will see Miller’s support for the HSUS every Sunday throughout the summer.

Take Action! Sportsmen can contact Miller to educate her about HSUS’s goals to end hunting, fishing, trapping and other forms of animal use. E-mail Miller at info@karimiller.com.



The link to PETA is on her page. Let her true colors be known.
Top Top