And So It Begins....The End of Hunting?

[cssutton]

And to anyone reading this who is about to complain that it has nothing to do with hunting and this is no place for politics, let me point out that politics has everything to do with hunting.

Also I would like to point out to those who might have missed it that the polar bear ruling is exactly the way in which hunting, fishing or anything else not supported by our new socialist government can be abolished or made so difficult that it would no longer be enjoyable and therefore not sustainable.

The reason this is not alarmist, in my opinion, is that we have reached for the first time in our history a confluence of forces, all of which are hostile to hunting and even to the idea of animal ownership.

A government that can only be described as a socialistic government, important officials in government who are hostile to hunting, guns, wealth, wealth by inheritance, manufacturing, large scale livestock farming, fossil fuels, etc.

A congress largely composed of the likes of Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, etc., who are really no better than hogs at the trough, in this case the trough being the treasury, the under the table money, whatever.

Virginia is a horrible example of embarrassing representation.

Add to that the huge sums HSUS has available to influence politics, some $1,300,000 each and every year for the past several years; add to that the increased cost of running for any government office, including those on the state and local level and then add to that the fact that we seem to have a major ethics problem in politics, again even at the state and local level.

If you like to hunt; if you farm cattle, horses or whatever, if you race or show horses, you had better be worried.

The same stupid ideas that brought about the proposal that dairy cattle be taxed at $185.00 per year because they make gas can be used to close your horse barn.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[Tantivy1]

[QUOTE=Beverley;3808226]
" your gut is right, there is trouble brewing- but it has been for years, and we are probably too late in playing catch up. I just don’t agree that the incoming administration is going to serve as a major catalyst. Years of prior actions get us where we are today, not what happened in the November elections.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, but the end result is not looking pretty, and I still have a gnawing fear that the current new admin, while having had the doors opened for themover the past few years, is going to use every advantage they now have to their own ends, and quickly, and this would not have been the case had a more hunting friendly admin been put in place.

[Beverley]

Claude,

Yes, I noticed I accidentally copied the wrong link from my files, and so deleted it. Nevertheless that old link did articulate the process being followed- it is standard procedure. Whether you like it or not, you do not seem to be familiar with the process. I am. I have to deal with Endangered Species Act compliance on a daily basis.

The Secretary of the Interior has the ultimate authority, pursuant to the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act, to make the final call on listings, following a process through either the Fish and Wildlife Service or Marine Fisheries that takes YEARS. That is not an arbitrary executive branch authority. It is based directly on the legislation enacted by Congress. During a Republican administration. The polar bear listing came during a Republican administration. Politics involved? Absolutely. If you don’t like the ESA- and it has been a controversial law for decades- I will tell you what I tell the engineers that have to wait for my say so to fire up their bulldozers- Congress spoke in 1973, it’s not up to us to say whether we like it or not, we have to comply. If ‘you’ (meaning anyone) don’t like the law, then you need to implore Congress to change it, the Executive branch (for which I work) cannot.

I do not agree that we have reached a ‘confluence of forces’ for the ‘first time in our history.’ It is an unfounded presumption based on the research I have done to date that the new administration is hostile to hunting. That certain individuals in the new administration are anti-hunting is as we’ve agreed worthy of monitoring, but again, the executive branch DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to arbitrarily ban or restrict hunting. And, by the way, PETA and HSUS know that, which is why FOR YEARS they have been chipping away by working to introduce legislation at the state, county and city levels, and working to get state wildlife officials to restrict hunting. They know that the way to get rid of hunting is state by state.

We agree that those who hunt, and for that matter those who own livestock and pets, should be really worried. Maybe we disagree that next week’s inauguration is any sort of catalyst. The biggest problem, insofar as hunting goes, is that there are so very few of us, including ALL types of hunting. We remain an asset mainly by virtue of revenues to the states from the purchase of hunting licenses- state wildlife agencies take a dim view of hunting restrictions when they affect revenues, which in turn fund management and habitat conservation. But the day it becomes more profitable to the state to fund ‘wildlife watching’ instead of hunting will be the day we are SOL.

[ArtilleryHill]

despite your assessment of said release having being purposely written to obtain an interview v. presenting anything that could remotely be of value to the hunting community.

Tantivy, I suggest you apply those vaunted close reading skills again to my original post. I never said there was nothing “remotely of value to the hunting community” in the press release. Nor did I say the press release did not contain facts. Nor have I said there’s nothing to be worried about regarding attacks on hunting. What I did say is that a press release is not an article, and that readers should always be aware of the difference.

I’ve pretty much explained that to death.

I agree with Beverley’s assessment of the general situation and that hunters need to be vigilant and intelligently proactive, as they always have needed to be. The most important issue by far is what strategies foxhunters, individually and collectively, intend to use to protect and promote foxhunting, regardless of what administration is in the White House.

As with almost any issue, if pressure groups covince a good majority of the general public that foxhunting is an immoral, dreadful thing and its banning is a crucial thing to put on the Congressional agenda, and if the public then pressures Congress effectively (through means made easier by those pressure groups), then that Congress, whether Democratic or Republican in majority, will be tempted to tackle the issue. If an issue like hunting is low-hanging fruit, and restricting or banning it an easy target for votes, then, yes, every person wanting votes is going to hop on that bandwagon, regardless of party. As we all know, this is the big reason you see politicians switch on issues as public opinion changes. It’s far more likely to happen state by state, and incrementally (which we’re already seeing, particularly in Pennsylvania and Virginia), rather than by some executive order making the state of Virginia off-limits to hunting (which would not do Obama any electoral favors at all, for a start).

So the key pretty clearly is not only to educate and be vigilant in the legislatures, by state and nationally, but also to continually try to get the general public (the voters) more familiar with and understanding of hunting. We are way, way behind the antis on this, and that’s a growing danger as urban life becomes more prevalent. So, sure, worry about and watch Cass Sunstein. But also get out and invite your non-hunting neighbors to follow the hunt. See if you can invite a group of kids out to the kennel to puppy walk. Show your local historic preservation group the land your hunt is conserving. See if your local columnist would be interested in doing a piece about the long and distinguished history of your hunt. That stuff matters, because, chances are, it’s those local folks who will be someday called upon to vote for or against you in some local or state proposition.

[Tantivy1]

[QUOTE=ArtilleryHill;3808909]
Tantivy, I suggest you apply those vaunted close reading skills again to my original post. I never said there was nothing “remotely of value to the hunting community” in the press release. .[/QUOTE]

Yes, I did just that and offer up apologies as you feel they are warranted.

However, you pretty much dished the press release for lack of a better description, and I think it presented a few basic facts easily followed up on to discern the truth of the matter, and there was nothing untrue in the PR.

Your attitude regarding the PR overall not favorable.

And I bow low, sweeping low, to your far superior intellectual powers. You are an awesome writer!

Jealous in VA

[cssutton]

Beverley:

I admit that we are now getting pretty far from a hunting topic, but:

You are correct in describing how the process is supposed to work, but we now have a crowd elected and appointed that does not believe in “how things are supposed to work”.

Witness the testimony this morning on Eric Holder.

Just one nugget to make my point: He issued the so called Holder rule which instructed justice prosecutors to tell corporations that they would get immunity from prosecution if the corporations refused to furnish legal counsel to their employees being investigated by the Justice Department.

That was in violation of the law which requires corporations to hire legal counsel for employees who are under investigation for activities engaged in while on the job.

Would the courts support Holder? Probably not, but who knows? And pity the poor employee who is forced to go it on his own all the way to the Supreme Court. It is not going to happen if the employee is low level and Holder and his kind bank on that. Roll over dead and he has what he needs to go after the others.

It is stuff like that that can lead to immediate results rather than the long drawn out process of following the rules.

Now I have not followed the polar bear story from its very beginning as I don’t have a lot of interest in polar bears and even less confidence in Al Gore and his global warming theories, but from the time we first heard about polar bears starving on ice floes ( lie, by the way) until the time they were declared endangered was less than one year.

Maybe there is a lot I am missing, but to say the ground work was laid many years ago I don’t think is a free pass because by that token one could find the groundwork for anything, including putting a penalty tax on dairy farmers for cows that pass gas and extending that to horse owners or anything else.

By the way, I am sure you know that the ordinary dairy operation has roughly 300 cows on the property. 300 x $185 = $55,000 and that would be every year.

Our government has gone over the edge, not because this has become law which it has not, but because we even have idiots in DC that would even think it, much less mention it in public.

We are in trouble in more ways than one.

And yes, I write my good senator on the average of once a week. Luckily my congress woman is as conservative as I am and I can tell what she is going to do about these things as soon as I see the proposal.

The down side is that both of them are the exception in DC.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[Tantivy1]

[QUOTE=cssutton;3809174]
Beverley:
Maybe there is a lot I am missing, but to say the ground work was laid many years ago I don’t think is a free pass because by that token one could find the groundwork for anything, including putting a penalty tax on dairy farmers for cows that pass gas and extending that to horse owners or anything else.

By the way, I am sure you know that the ordinary dairy operation has roughly 300 cows on the property. 300 x $185 = $55,000 and that would be every year.[/QUOTE]

EXACTLY, taxing cow gas, but horses will not be far behind.

I mean, in plain English, they want to tax livestock for FARTING.

But if the same people give the cows legal rights…I should certainly hope the cows and horses would use those very legal rights and sue for their rights to FART FREELY.

And with those same legal rights they will be suing us HUMANS for doing the same.

And where does this get us all?

I don’t know if one should laugh or cry at it all.

I guess I need a bumper sticker that says HORSES: FART FREE OR DIE

[linquest]

[QUOTE=Tantivy1;3809601]
I guess I need a bumper sticker that says HORSES: FART FREE OR DIE[/QUOTE]

…or a license plate :lol:

[JSwan]

@Tantivy1;3809601

And with those same legal rights they will be suing us HUMANS for doing the same.

My livestock and pets don’t fart.

They poot.

Seriously - haven’t y’all heard of the case over in Switzerland, I think. It’s all about giving personhood to a chimpanzee.

Duh - it’s Spain and it already happened. NZ, Spain and the UN. HSUS is proposing a ban on the use of apes in research in the US and worldwide. I hope no HSUS members get cancer or hepatitis or HIV…

[Beverley]

For anyone interested in a brief overview w/bibliography on the animal protection movement:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/w/wallsd/animal-rights-movement.shtml

Gotta run, more to follow, maybe, if this is still going in a few days…

[IrishRydr]

A+ to Beverley!

[Dixon]

[QUOTE=Tantivy1;3806263]
Anyone who would be happy to represent foxhounds file suit in order to allow them to continue the sport for which they have been carefully bred for for centuries?

To deny them their RIGHTS to continue their BIRTHRIGHT of foxhunting is cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention outright discrimination against them as a breed.

I smell a class action lawsuit on behalf of all foxhounds, American, English and PMDS, united may they stand! :)[/QUOTE]

The same attorney can represent the PIT BULLS to protect their birthright of tearing other dogs to pieces, and allow them to continue the sport for which THEY have been carefully bred.

[cssutton]

Are you saying that foxhunting is in the class with dog fighting?

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[cssutton]

I withdraw the question.

I agree that some really hot shot attorney should take the case of the Pitt Bulls and get all ant-dog fighting laws declared unconstitutional in that it violates their right to exercise their right.

Same for cock fighting.

Same for bear baiting.

CSSJR

I like my sig better all the time.

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor’s right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[Tantivy1]

[QUOTE=Dixon;3810449]
The same attorney can represent the PIT BULLS to protect their birthright of tearing other dogs to pieces, and allow them to continue the sport for which THEY have been carefully bred.[/QUOTE]

There is some official in Montanna (I think) that is trying to pass a bill to outlaw all Pittbulls. I know next to nothing about them and admit at a glance they seem vicious.

So I visited a website where people could reply yea or nay to the motion and voice their opinions on the matter.

SURPRISE, I was shocked to see sentiment running about 90% in favor of keeping pitbulls. Many of the people writing in had them as pets, some had had them for years, and no issues. Three people had been killed in the state by dogs in the past 43 years and none of the killing dogs had been pitbulls either.

There was next to zero support for the proposed legislation.

And in reply to your comment, I guess we will need attorney’s to represent sharks that eat whales, foxes that eat mice and coyote who rip the abdomens of sheep open and eat the still living ewe before they carry off the foetus.

Oh, and they have bred themselves to do this with no help from us, imagine that!