Bugger off Bob.
[QUOTE=Beverley;3643958]
Equibrit is right. Congressman Dingell used to go deer hunting with our group, and a good friend of ours worked for him. Waxman or anybody else will pry that gavel out of his cold, dead hands.
My message to you is much the same as my message to Hokieman on that other idiotic thread. If you guys keep spreading alarmist drivel, you will before long tune out the people who matter most to your cause.[/QUOTE]
Quite true.
How can it possibly be considered alarmist drivel? He said that a move was afoot to remove Dingell from his committe chairmanship and replace him with Henry Waxman. Lo and behold today ABC news announces the same thing. We won’t know until tomorrow if it happens, but what he said was exactly true.
If Dingell (a moderate) is replaced by Waxman (an extreme leftist) then this a sign that the Dems plan on playing a hardball, take-no-prisoners game.
Because it has nothing to do with hunting. And hunting aside, it has nothing to do with the various spectra, center to left. And because it has nothing to do with where Waxman or Dingell stand in the political spectrum.
It’s a great topic for discussion on a political bulletin board. But it is not politically astute to rally hunting and animal welfare supporters on a political fight that has nothing to do with hunting, or animals. We are too insignificant in number to be wasting clout when it isn’t our fight.
All I can say is, can we keep this horse-related?
Well, yes, I was wondering how it was horse-related, myself. But, aside from that, he was spot on. I’d just as soon politics not rear its ugly head here, either, since as you say, we’ve got political forums for that!
I am amazed at some of the posts here.
This is a hunting related topic if there ever was one.
Those who live in PA should know what HSUS tried to get passed into law, but ended up with a watered down bill because of strong opposition. That is a taste of what is to come.
Virginia deer hunters are at the moment the prime target of HSUS and its supporters. For some odd reason, ride to hounds hunters think that they are above it all and that none of this will affect them.
If you read the HSUS mission statement, readily available from one of their calendars, you will see that HSUS equates hunting anything with hounds, whether fox, bear, raccoon or rabbit with dog fighting. HSUS constantly refers to hounds and their game “fighting”, being torn to pieces, etc.
But of course they just couldn’t be referring to hunting as practiced by the ride to hounds clubs.
My own prediction is that within 5 years or less there will be no hunting with hounds in the state of VA. I doubt that there will be an outright ban in the early stages, but more like the laws that have been either proposed or actually passed in other states requiring xxxx acres of contiguous land, written permission slips from all landowners to be carried by each and every hunter (meaning members of clubs), big fines for hounds straying beyond land hunted by permission, extreme kennel requirements as to square ft. per hound, heated floors in the winter, air conditioned in the summer, spay neuter requirements, chipped hounds, etc., to the point that club dues will look like $2,000 ot $3,000 for the most modest clubs, etc.
In other words, wear you out so you give it up.
I will say that our only salvation so far is that Waxman is an idiot, extremely ineffectual. To my knowledge, he has investigated everything that moves but has never passed any meaningful legislation.
But the problem is in BO’s appointments to cabinet positions. There are many things the Secretary of Agriculture, Secretary of Interior, Secretary of Homeland Defense, etc., can do without going through congress.
However, with people like Wasman in key positions it is more than likely that anything presented to congress by any of these appointees to cabinet positions will be approved by congress.
This is a serious time for all hunters whether gun hunters or hound hunters and it is a huge mistake to blow it off.
It may be unpleasant to see this discussed here, but it is important that everyone get concerned about the future of hunting enough to pester your congress critter, your local reps and vote for the right guy.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.
Well, Waxman has replaced Dingell as the committee chairman as was feared.
Per recent posts, if the thread/topic remains focused on opinions re: how these events may affect foxhunting, it’s OK. Any greater political debate should be saved for another board.
Thanks,
Mod 1
Animal Rightist Waxman Defeats Sportsman Dingell for House Chairmanship
Animal Rightist Waxman Defeats Sportsman Dingell for House Chairmanship
Two crummy (unrecorded, i.e. secret) votes yesterday and eight today. Second story follows. What a disgrace. Fifty-two years in Congress, the liberals knife sportsman champion John Dingell in the back and an ill-informed mouthy poster here says it doesn’t matter. This is our worst loss in many years and bodes extremely badly for future federal hunting and animal welfare regulations.
Eight lousy sinking votes. If you were too busy to make calls in the last week for Mr. Dingell, be ashamed, be very ashamed. Mrs. Heffernan’s has proved to be 100% wrong on everything she’s previously posted on this topic. She now says John Dingell and committee control mean nothing to hunters and “it is not politically astute to rally hunting and animal welfare supporters on a political fight that has nothing to do with hunting, or animals. We are too insignificant in number to be wasting clout when it isn’t our fight.”
What useless post-hoc rationalization, sad spin doctoring and how totally wrong!
How we hunt, where we hunt, how you dispose of your horse(s), and whether the federal government prescribes how you care of your hounds and other pets are all in play with this new liberal controlled Congress. Beverly may impress some on this list because she speaks so authoritatively about Washington and politics, into what had been a HOC vacuum. She once worked in DC - not as a lobbyist, line supervisor or analyst, but as mid level GS staffer, editing others’ reports for English grammar. She’s naive, opinionated, obstinate, and with too much time on her hands, but she must know how wrong she is, by intuition alone. Tally No anyone?
If you followed her advice and philosophy, you’d wait until a bill directly naming your hunt was before a congressional committee before you took action, e.g. foxhunting banned on named federal lands, no hound hunting of certain furbearers, et al. HSUS et al have introduced ~50 bills and other measures in the last ten years. All but a couple of them were killed by GOP members, Blue Dog Democrats and supportive committee chairmen like John Dingell. I went out of my way in the very first post to make this fight personal for horseowners. With the liberals in control of both Houses and the toppling of our supporters like John, the future is very bright for Washington anti-hunters and animal rightists.
The widely accepted knock on hunters is that they don’t vote or take effective action when needed. This one couldn’t have been more simple - quickly influence a handful of impressionable freshmen congressmen elected this month. HSUS management is smiling and throwing a party in Washington today. They’ll be toasting hunters like Equibrit, Beverley Heffernan and those who wait for others to defend themselves or refuse to get their hands dirty making a few phone calls.
Waxman Defeats Dingell for Gavel
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
November 20, 2008, 10:51 a.m.
Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.) has ousted Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (Mich.), as Democratic lawmakers voted 137-122 Thursday morning to hand the gavel of the powerhouse panel to its second-ranking member.
The vote marks a stunning rebuke of the seniority system Democrats have honored for decades. It also constitutes a win, of sorts, for Speaker Nancy Pelisse (D-Calif.), who is ideologically aligned with Waxman and has clashed repeatedly with Dingell.
Though Pelosi steered widely clear of any involvement in the race herself, Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), one of her top lieutenants, helped lead the charge for Waxman.
What’s next for Dingell — who, with 27 terms under his belt, is the dean of the House — was not immediately clear. One option for him would be to take the gavel of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, a reduced though still significant portfolio as lawmakers gear up for an expected health care overhaul.
Dingell to Serve as Chairman Emeritus
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
November 20, 2008, 11:30 a.m.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced Thursday that ousted Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) will continue to serve the panel as chairman emeritus, a post with unclear duties but that represents an olive branch to the fallen gavel-holder.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) successfully nabbed the chairmanship from Dingell earlier in the morning when his colleagues voted 137-122 to give him the helm of the committee in the next Congress.
Pelosi made the announcement to the Members of her Democratic Caucus following the vote.
Bob- you do realize that not all liberals feel the same way on every issue, just as not all conservatives do? Secondly, most people are not going to (and should not!) vote for a politician based on their stance on a single issue. For a sport that suffers from an “elitist” image, here and abroad, making people feel unwelcome because of their political tendencies is certainly not going to earn converts and people sympathetic to your cause.
Keep up the liberal-bashing–it’s a GREAT way for the numbers of foxhunters to keep dwindling :no:
As a liberal foxhunter who hunts with quite a few other liberal foxhunters, THANK YOU, Linquest.
I guess that depends on how important hunting is to you.
I have hunted for 67 years and owned hounds for the past 50 years and it is important to me.
I have never seen a conservative’s name on an anti-hound, anti-hunting or ani- 2nd Amendment proposal so there is some validity to mentioning that certain liberal candidates are vociferously anti-hunting.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.
Liberal is not a pejorative.
[QUOTE=linquest;3667565]
Bob- you do realize that not all liberals feel the same way on every issue, just as not all conservatives do? Secondly, most people are not going to (and should not!) vote for a politician based on their stance on a single issue. For a sport that suffers from an “elitist” image, here and abroad, making people feel unwelcome because of their political tendencies is certainly not going to earn converts and people sympathetic to your cause.
Keep up the liberal-bashing–it’s a GREAT way for the numbers of foxhunters to keep dwindling :no:[/QUOTE]
This is the second reference made here to “your” cause. I wouldn’t post here if I didn’t believe we were all affected by the animal rightist threat and needed to pull together.
With the forebearance of the moderator:
Political names and labels are interesting. John Dingell was considered a flaming liberal historically on health care, the environment, et. al. and a conservative on gun control and national security. He’s now a “progressive” or “moderate” in today’s lexicon. He called Henry Waxman a “left-winger” last week, which I think is accurate. Would you prefer that I substitute animal rights zealot or left-winger for liberal?
Hard data’s difficult to acquire on an unrecorded vote, but some ACLU-type, NYC-Boston liberals, supported John Dingell, if Barney Frank and a few more count. John also scored very well with African-Americans, led by John Lewis, a respected civil rights leader and A-A icon.
In the final analysis, John Dingell was defeated by the democrats that HSUS endorsed for reelection on November 4th, whether you call them liberals, left-wingers, animal rights zealots or fools. If more than five democrats not endorsed for reelection by anti-hunter, animal rightist HSUS voted against John Dingell, I’d be stunned.
I’m personally an independent and have endorsed and contributed to candidates of both major parties. I also attempt to lobby both party members identically. In both Virginia and Washington we have significant concerns with RINOS (republicans in name only). Our British friends will verify that the political designation “Liberal” has a well-established and very specific meaning. My spouse reminds me “Liberal is not a pejorative.” She’s right, but under these circumstances it’s the kindest shorthand I can manage publicly.
Some may be interested in HSUS’s Congressional 2007-2008 voting record comments;
The average Senate score was a 43, with Senate Democrats averaging 60, and Senate Republicans averaging 24.
The average House score was a 53, with House Democrats averaging 71, and House Republicans averaging 33.
Seventeen Senators scored 100 or 100+ (13 Democrats, 4 Republicans).
Thirty-one Senators scored zero (7 Democrats, 24 Republicans).
Eighty-three Representatives scored 100 or 100+ (69 Democrats, 14 Republicans).
Thirty-seven Representatives scored zero (3 Democrats, 34 Republicans).
The New England region led the pack with an average Senate score of 75 and an average House score of 89.
The Rocky Mountains were at the bottom with an average Senate score of 13 and an average House score of 27.
California, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Jersey are the only states in which both Senators scored 100 or 100+.
Alabama, Idaho, Kentucky, Montana, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming are the only states in which both Senators scored zero.
Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island are the only states with an average House score of 90 or above.
Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Utah are the only states with an average House score below 20.
Sad to say that there will be a big difference with Rep. Waxman as the chairman. I had lots of experience dealing with animal issues before both of them, and can’t really see Rep. Waxman sympathetic at all, or relating in any way, to issues that would be important to horse owners and foxhunters, unless they seem to align with the interests of animal rights/strong animal protection proponents. Rep. Waxman does not appear to be an up close and personal animal lover himself (probably allergic or something), so I wouldn’t count on him to have any sort of real world perspective on this one (unfortunately). The best we can hope for is that Congress will be so busy with the big issues, that the things that affect us might fall to the bottom of the agenda.
You are right that people on both ideological sides and in the middle differ on many issues and animal welfare is a prime example. I’m a conservative Republican who opposes horse slaughter for human consumption. I see no reason to allow American horses to be slaughtered by foreign corporations and shipped to France and like nations, having our Belgian horses go to Japan for their Sushi and now they are breeding large breed dogs to eat and shipping them to parts of Asia too. “Tasty Mastiff!” :no:
Where does it end?
Americans as a nation have repeatedly spoken that they do not want American horses being slaughtered in assembly line fashion by the thousands to supply foreign gourmet diners with an expensive source of protein. I don’t object to zoos taking lame horses or the horses going to the hounds. The huntsman should be a good shot, use the right bullet and end the horses life humanely and quickly without suffering. A slaughterhouse is terrifying and doesn’t resemble anything that will ease him out of this world. They are slaughtering mostly healthy young horses for human consumption.
So “Tally HO!” Have a great time foxhunting but remember, both the hound and the horse are living, breathing creatures that feel fear and pain. Treat them fairly and with respect and I’ll be on your side. Treat them wrong and you make me your enemy and I have a big mouth.
What is the difference in raising cattle for food and raising horses for food?
I happen to believe that there are horses that need to be done away with. That the sport would be better served by getting them totally out of circulation. Whether in a can of Alpo or on some Frenchman’s table matters not to me.
Biters, kickers, rearers, runaways, shyers, buckers and other unmanageable rogues.
Dogs are different. Most dogs have a reasonable vocabulary and show a lot of affection.
Claude S. Sutton, Jr.
so there is some validity to mentioning that certain liberal candidates are vociferously anti-hunting.
It is always valid to point out where various politicians stand on issues relevant to hunting. I know that some conservative Republicans, such as Ed Whitfield, also are known for stances sympathetic to HSUS–which, incidentally, gave him an award this year. Jackie Kennedy famously was both a Democrat and a foxhunter. Pointing out where individual politicians stand on an issue is one thing, but making such blanket statements as “liberals knife so-and-so in the back” makes it clear the poster does indeed think “liberal” is a perjorative term.
How we hunt, where we hunt, how you dispose of your horse(s), and whether the federal government prescribes how you care of your hounds and other pets are all in play with this new liberal controlled Congress.
Actually, those issues are ALWAYS in play; it is not as if the HSUS stops working when Republicans are in the majority. As has been pointed out time and again, HSUS and other animal rights organizations will always be looking for ways to introduce these types of legislation, whether state-by-state or on the federal level, whether the leadership is Democratic or Republican. To see huntng issues as purely a Democrat versus Republican issue–as it seems to be being played in Kane’s most recent posts–is to ignore both the reality of individuals like Rep. Whitfield and, worse, to ignore the greatest need: to educate all legislators and all citizens to the greatest extent possible about foxhunting and its place in our society. There is common ground there–land, habitat, and wildlife conservation issues, to name but one example, are a promising example of how hunting intersects with what I’m sure Kane would have to agree are generally regarded as “traditional liberal interests.”
I can assure you that HSUS doesn’t simply divide the map up by red and blue, then go for the blue while writing off the red. They recruit people to their side regardless of political stripe, but by appealing to them with arguments they think will work. It’s up to foxhunters to do the same for our issues and concerns, and it is unhelpful, at best, to fall for the old bugaboo that anyone who is a Democrat is necessarily anti-hunting–a myth amply debunked by the very makeup of members of this board. It is especially unhelpful to then rant about or insult those who are in fact fighting alongside you in the pro-hunting cause as being necessarily unfit for the fight simply and entirely by dint of their political registration. We have Republicans and Democrats in the hunt field, we have conservatives and liberals in the hunt field. We have had all these varieties of hunter join the MFHA, carry hunting horns, lobby their state and federal governments for pro-hunting issues. That is the reality.
The other reality is that Democrats are now in the majority federally. Hunters will need to work within that reality. Wailing, gnashing of teeth, and accusing Democrats of being “liberal backstabbers” doesn’t strike me as one of the more effective strategies we have at our disposal. Surely to God we are collectively more creative and resourceful than that?
Well, Bob (and Claude) this still has NOTHING to do with hunting, but you’re right, I was wrong about just how much Dingell’s power base has eroded. Did a little informal checking since your first post and was astonished at the fact that people I thought were solid Dingell supporters were now saying nope, this change ain’t that bad.
But I am still right about the process, Bob. Rallying hunters to call or email about the Energy and Commerce committed chairmanship was a pretty silly idea. Do you REALLY think that the powers that be pay attention to public input on committee assignments, let alone chairs? If so you are sadly mistaken. Best to save those campaigns for things DIRECTLY RELATED to hunting.
Claude, I share your pessimism in general as regards hunting. But it has nothing to do with the President-elect, or the party controlling the Congress. Knee-jerk, sky is falling reactions of the losing party are ALWAYS in my recollection without basis in fact. The real enemy has nothing to do with politics. It has to do, in my opinion, with the following, in order of importance:
- We are a nation of spoiled brats, who don’t have to farm or hunt to get our food on the table, we just go to the grocery store, and there it is.
- Related strongly to #1, we, and by that I would hazard a guess of 95% plus of the current population, have lost touch with the land. We have no concept of flora and fauna either in the wild or under domestic management. What most people know about wildlife, they learn from Disney movies. When I went to see the exhibit on the Horse at the NY Museum of Natural History this summer, I surveyed the crowd and realized that the overwhelming majority of those in attendance were learning in that exhibit all they’ll ever know about horses.
- Related strongly to #2, and the biggest problem in my opinion, is that HSUS and PETA have successfully infiltrated our school systems (note to Bob, nothing to do with the actions of Congress) and introduced anti-hunting and anti-agrarian curricula that have by now been taken as truth by millions of school age to young adult Americans. Coupled with that is the fact that there has not to date (and it’s probably too late) been ANY effective counter to HSUS and PETA in the state houses or in D.C. Sorry, Bob, but SAOVA doesn’t do it, USSA doesn’t seem to do it, MFHA doesn’t do it, NAIA doesn’t seem to get it done, nor AVMA, nor AAEP, nor even all of them working together. There simply isn’t one single effort countering HSUS, and if there isn’t one soon, as in last week, well, Claude is right.
So. Get Over that Dingell lost, and figure out how to most effectively marshall your slim numbers. Go read up on the revolutionary war, and take some lessons on how Washington pulled it off with small numbers of amateurs against a large professional army. And most of all, quit badmouthing people who are on the same side of the hunting issue as you, and yet dare to disagree with you. I’ll do it again, any time I think you are wrong.
One more point, Bob, if you are going to blame me and Equibrit for your failures, I’m going to say that is laughable. Dingell has always been a ruthless fellow, but with many redeeming qualities on substance, most particularly that he could get legislation passed. But in essence that ruthlessness has finally caught up with him. You would do well to study that lesson and be a little nicer to people, in general. And by the way, bulletin board protocol and manners dictate that one doesn’t refer to people other than by their screen names. Your posting of my full name was pretty ill-mannered and a violation of protocol. Not to mention you are messing up my vanity google.
Gee, Bob, I managed to miss the following inaccuracy in your post:
“She once worked in DC - not as a lobbyist, line supervisor or analyst, but as mid level GS staffer, editing others’ reports for English grammar.”
Incorrect on your part. I don’t tend to blow my own horn, unlike you, with puffed up credentials. Let’s just say I worked for FEA and DOE from 1975 to 1997, with 4 years’ break for small children, the last two years as an intermittent consultant after relocation to Utah. Editor was never my job description. Well, okay, maybe when I was first starting out at FEA. I do recall that you got a bit steamed when higher ups bounced your letters to be corrected by a hapless kid just out of college.
