« Manufacturers Roll Out Pink Guns For Women | Main | Discussion Topic: Should Fishing Be a High School Sport? »

September 25, 2007

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Field Notes at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes.

NRA Alert: Wisconsin Bill Sees Animal Abuse As Domestic Violence

From an NRA press release:

Senate Bill 162 . . . would make “harm or threat of harm” to an animal a form of domestic abuse. In Wisconsin, being charged with domestic abuse means losing the ability to purchase or possess firearms.

The absurdity of SB 162 is that it not only equates animals to humans, but also does not define what “harm or threat of harm” is. Animal “rights” extremists could argue that the training of hunting dogs or everyday treatment of dairy cattle constitutes abuse.

Click here to contact members of the state Senate Committee of Judiciary and Corrections.


Blue Ox

How convienent they don't mention what kind of animal or what exactly constitutes as 'harm'.
More communist propoganda from the tree huggers and PETAfiles.


I think if a person intentionally harms an animal or a person out of cruelty, boredom, or rage; they should be punished the same. I do not see us as so above animals just because we read or write. I would think the latter portion of what is written above is a scare tactic. I seriously doubt anyone will try to institute legislation to ban farming of cows and pigs. Furthermore I regret it is even written. My intelligence is insulted. I would like to think all those that will post after this will leave the peta comments out.
Either you want to punish sick, abusive people or you do not. If certain lawsuits come into play later - debate them later.


Any law ever written has loopholes and room for argument/debate. Don't kid yourselves here.


If someone goes home and bludgeons there dog, with a tire iron, out of frustration - I would like to SPEAK with them about it. Then I would like to see them punished; severly.

If someone kills a deer, legally during hunting season - right on!


I took the time to read the bill. It does grant equal status to humans and animals in cases of abuse.

It specifically grants exceptions for agricultural and veterinary purposes (Oddly - no specific exception for medical research or sport.) Gee - sounds like some animal activists at work on that clause.

The bill would criminalize "threats to commit animal abuse". e.g. If I threaten to shoot your dog because he keeps jumping through the fence into my hen house, then, under SB 162, I will have committed abuse and be subject to the loss of my firearm.

The sponsors are (insert surprise here) members of the "D" party, one of whom represents Madison - commonly known as "10 square miles surrounded by reality".

Animal abusers are sick, twisted people and should be prosecuted and counseled. Should they be permanently denied the right to own a weapon? - No. Should it be a temporary loss, regained after certain conditions are satisfied? - Yes.

SB 162 is an invitation and foothold for future absurd legislation from leftists. It's a bad bill and should be thrown in file 13.


Typical treee hugger, change the point of view to show people as abusive so you do not have to see the truth behind this bill. It is a bill aimed at taking away rights to hunt, fish, and eat meat. They cannot take away these rights by writting "no hunting, no fishing, no eating meat" so they write bills like this one very unclear. If you are an animal lover and support PETA go to their website (make sure your pet is sitting in your lap), then when you read they believe that owning a pet is a form of slavery, and they want to outlaw the owning of pets. Send them another check for your pet as they try to take them from you.

If we give animals the protection of our laws then don't we have to hold them to the same laws? If a bear or deer trespasses on your land can you have them arrested? Can you put a coyote in jail for murder or "animal cruelty" for killing a baby deer?

Just wondering how far into crazy land you are willing to go Tommy.


Abort a child, hug a grizzly bear, that's the PETA way.



Joshua if you think its ok to harm things out of your own spite, I hope you lose everything as soon as possible. I am no tree hugger, and I am trying to change no subject. GTH. I also have seen these weak unfortunate arguments by you before. Again - GTHAD!


The reason I will not stoop to your level is this.

I have read your posts many times before and seen how you misrepresent others and try to start arguments instead of intelligently debating things. IHYDS.

Hey everyone!

There's a bobcat in the street - get your gun quick it might get away. I bet it tastes great. Go kill your neighbors house cat or something.


Does an animal have to be as intelligent as we are to be protected from abuse? Of course you could not charge them as humans. You have problems sir.


To Jack's point about the length of time you lose your gun.

I think if you do physical harm out of spite or hatred you should lose alot more than just your gun rights for the rest of your life.

I do not like to see things harmed out of hatred. It is sickening - and has nothing to do with peta. It should be in the basic core of your being. Hunting is one thing - abuse is another.


One other thing I would say. I am not in favor of this bill.

But if I were to see someone hit an animal or a person in the head with a bat. They would be hard pressed to escape anything less from me.


If defending an animal or a person from brutal, sensless violence makes me a tree hugger - then so be it.

Will Becker

Give the Anti-gun crowd an inch and they'll take a mile.They won't stop until they remove our guns.PETA won't stop until hunting stops.Are we going to stand for it?


http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1442803.htmlKindly have a peek at this story which is not in Wisc but in neighboring Minn. It shows the "stupidity" of animal cruelty.I hope they throw the duck oooops book at him!!!!


http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1442803.htmlKindly have a peek at this story which is not in Wisc but in neighboring Minn. It shows the "stupidity" of animal cruelty.I hope they throw the duck oooops book at him!!!!


up above the word "kindly" does not belong in the star-trib address,so goto this one........http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1442803.html


up above the word "kindly" does not belong in the star-trib address,so goto this one........http://www.startribune.com/467/story/1442803.html


"All who enter spread joy, some by leaving, some by staying!"
Tree huggers:
"I will defend to the death, your right to speak your mind! DON'T expect me to agree with you! EVER!"

Sage Sam

Hold on a sec. First of all, I am a paid environmentalist. I also hunt and fish (and used to trap back in the day). One of the things that continually ticks me off is lumping treehuggers in with animal rights activists, we ain't the same thing. For you folks that think we're just a bunch of pinko commies just remember that more than a few of us served our country in combat, used to patrol your streets keeping you safe and used to (or still) provided the food that you put on your table. Just like in all other forms of life, the loudest and most ignorant of us get the most attention.

That said, obviously all forms of animal cruelty (e.g. intentionally harming a pet) are wrong and those that perpetrate the acts deserve to be punished. However, I have serious difficulty believing that the good folks in Wisconsin would try and expand the scope of domestic violence to something like this.

Read the actual bill first http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2007/data/SB-162.pdf
before jumping to conclusions. The fact of the matter is that this is a law making process and more than likely the lawmakers who wrote this bill did not think about the potential consequences to gun rights and will now rectify that loophole. However, all that could have been done through a few meetings between NRA and legislators, instead the NRA tries to get us all worked up so they can hit us up for donations. I for one don't feel the need to make sure that Wayne LaPierre has an even bigger mansion in Washington D.C. (rich folks rarely have my best interests in mind).


Jeez Bubba, quit readin my mind! You are makin me paranoid. I keep lookin out my door to find you. Your mom like the milk man too? I'm tellin ya we are long lost brothers! LOL!! We are of like minds. Keep preachin brother I got your back!


Borden or Lucerne?
Sage Sam
You make a good point. There is a difference between "tree hugger" and "animal rights activist". If you would, please post your view of the differences. I ain't trying to be cute, I am truly interested! Sometimes perception is clouded by suspicion.



My view of "tree hugger" is someone truly concerned about the environs. However there are different degrees of huggerism. From absolute nuts to Sage Sam who seems to have the right intentions. NOW to the rights activists. I generally think of them as vegetarian morons at best! In my home state they had protests that fishing should be outlawed as cruel i.e. PETA.I agree that anyone that would harm an animal for no reason has a serious character flaw and should be dealt with harshly.I have my opinions and will defend them fiercely but try not to take myself too seriously. On that note lets all join Peta,

Matt Mallery

I guess I'm a tree hugger because I want to preserve hunting and fishing territory rather than see it all become a masterplanned community or a series of strip malls.

As far as the anti abortion comment, I'm pro choice but that has nothing to do with this forum, so I won't get into it other than to say that jstreet, if you are a man, good for you. You will never have to make a choice in regards to abortion.

As far as animal rights, Both PETA and the other extreme (those that see animals as having no right) could both use a little common sense. Hunting, fishing, raising animals for food in an ethical manner? Yes. Putting perfume in their eyes to make sure it's safe for women, cockfighting, dog fighting, hitting a dog with a board because you have had a bad day? No.

I have not read this bill, but unless it is very specific as to what is and is not animal cruelty, then I would be uncomfortable with it.

Our Blogs