Category: Hunting

Looks like this group North Dakotans for Fair Chase is having another go at trying to ban preserve hunting in North Dakota.  As best I can tell, this group isn’t necessarily a front for HSUS, but is a group of hunters who are helping push the HSUS agenda.

This would be like if a group of shooters, and I don’t mean a front group like AHSA, but actual shooters, got together and worked with the Brady Campaign to try to ban handguns.

Hunting has been on the decline for a while, and while many of the factors involved are fundamental, one big reason is the attitude of hunters themselves, and I can think of no better example than this.

UPDATE: I wonder if the Mule Deer Foundation will get behind the effort like they did last time.  I sometimes have to wonder if Wayne Pacelle sometimes looks in bewildered amazement at the readiness that hunters stick their necks out in order that he may take the blade to their sport in order to slaughter it.  If groups like the mule deer foundation don’t think HSUS will push a mule deer ban once they’ve picked off all the unpopular groups, they are naive beyond belief.

I just got around to reading this HuffPo piece by HSUS on the forthcoming animal cruelty case, U.S. v. Stevens.  HSUS has made its fortune casually leaving vital details in its arguments.  Like the fact that even though the raise money talking about local animal shelters, but they don’t actually care for abandoned animals or run your local humane societies.  Or, in this case, that there are legitimate hunting interests that will be banned if their get their way in this court case.

Michael Markarian argues that NRA, along with Safari Club, POMA, and OWAA, are on the side of child pornographers.  Oh yeah, and so is Eugene Volokh, apparently.  These parties have intervened in the Stevens case because of legitimate First Amendment concerns regarding the depiction of hunting and fishing.  See, the government and HSUS are claiming that the federal law being challenged only bans commercial videos and photos of clear animal cruelty.  Markarian tries to claim that it’s really focused on “‘animal crush’ videos, where scantily clad women, often in high-heeled shoes, impale and crush to death puppies, kittens and other small animals, catering to those with a sexual fetish for this aberrant behavior” and dog fighting videos.  Of course, that’s when he pulls out the argument that NRA leadership are out of touch with sportsmen.

The truth is there is nothing in the Depictions of Animal Cruelty Act that could possibly affect lawful sport hunting. Indeed the statute only criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty that are illegal, and it doesn’t cover lawful practices such as hunting. The law specifically exempts any material that has political, social, or artistic value — say, an outdoor column or hunting website — and only affects videos that are sold in interstate commerce for commercial gain. This is essentially the same test for stopping the production and sale of certain forms of human obscenity. No one is going to try to take away someone’s snapshots or home movies of their latest hunting excursion.

Of course the law doesn’t outlaw hunting itself.  It just outlaws depicting hunting for any commercial purpose.  An outdoor column probably qualifies for a press exemption, but a website may not if a blogger decides to run ads or actually try making money talking about and displaying photos of their hunts.  More importantly, those popular hunting shows?  Probably in violation.

As Eugene points out in his brief, the law says that if state laws are violated, the material becomes illegal under federal law.

Consider, for example, a photograph of a deer being shot by a hunter in Montana that is later sold in New York.  Assume that New York limits deer hunting to specified days of the year and to persons who qualify for and actually possess a valid hunting license. If the deer was shot by a hunter who not only possesses a valid Montana license but could lawfully obtain a license in New York, and was shot on a day that is in-season in both Montana and New York, then—and only then—is the depiction immune from prosecution under Section 48. That same depiction, however, is subject to prosecution under Section 48 if the deer was shot by a hunter who was not licensed in Montana, was shot by someone who is licensed in Montana but would not qualify for a license in New York, or was shot on a day that although in-season in Montana is out-of-season in New York.

The fact that the depiction could be prosecuted under any of these scenarios shows that Section 48 is not “limited to depictions of illegal acts of extreme cruelty.  Gov’t Br. 8. Whether the depiction is criminalized by Section 48 does not depend on whether the deer was subjected to extreme cruelty; the deer was treated identically in each instance. Nor does the criminalization of the depiction depend on the illegality of the conduct where it occurred; by its plain terms, Section 48 criminalizes depictions of acts that were legal in the State where they occurred if those same acts are illegal in another State where the depictions are sold. Thus, contrary to the government’s assertion, Section 48 reaches depictions of conduct that is neither extremely cruel nor illegal in “[a]ll 50 States and the District of Columbia.” Gov’t Br. 25.”

But Markarian says that making such arguments in the case is akin to allowing people t0 “sell videos of people actually abusing children or raping women, and the same legal principles are at hand with malicious acts of cruelty.”  Really?  Showing a video of a hunter shooting a deer according to the laws of Montana is like a video of criminals raping a woman?  Is that the kind of rhetoric that HSUS has been reduced to in trying to put a stop to hunting culture?  It would appear so.  I would say that it is HSUS that is out-of-touch with traditional values.

Chuck E. Cheese loses its gaming license in Amherst, New York, because town officials believe that the hunting and shooting related video games are bad for children.  I still remember when Duck Hunt came out for Nintendo.  Good thing the Amherst City Council wasn’t around then.

There’s a controversy up in the Great White North about whether restaurants ought to be serving seal meat.  Personally, if you’re killing the animal for the fur, what’s the sense in wasting the rest of the animal if people want to eat it?

He has since taken a deep, almost protective interest in the way seal reaches his restaurant, traveling to the islands to meet the hunters, and visiting the abattoir where the meat is butchered. Mr. Lenglet also sought out local purveyors who could smoke the meat.

You can smoke seal?  Hey, I have a smoker now.  Seal BBQ anyone?  Apparently it has a somewhat fishy taste, which is odd for a mammal, but I’m guessing it’s because seals eat mainly fish.

Remember that bill Wayne Pacelle was complaining NRA was opposing?  Well, it stalled in the house and is headed back to committee.  I think that’s a good outcome, because there are things in the bill that I don’t think we ought to have any trouble with, but some things really need to change.  I’m rather mystified that the following groups are joining forces with HSUS on this:

The Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs was joined in support of the bill by the Quality Deer Management Association, the National Wild Turkey Federation, Pheasants Forever, United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania Ruffed Grouse, Pennsylvania Forest Coalition, Pennsylvania Crossbow Association and the Pennsylvania Deer Association.

Support also came from P.E.T.A. and the Humane Society, both anti-hunting groups.

Considerable fuss was made when the National Rifle Association questioned the bill, even though the NRA supported the concept. It became almost a frenzy as people and groups joined in condemning the N.R.A. over their mere concern.

There’s just no way that poaching should be in the same league as robbing a bank.  Sorry, no.  It’s a misdemeanor at most.  The District Attorney’s association and the gun rights groups in this state were right to raise concerns.  If Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, which I am a member of, is going to keep joining forces with Wayne Pacelle and PETA, I will not renew my membership with them and will cease supporting the organization.  I fear they are already suffering for Melody Zullinger’s absence.

The Humaine Society of the United States wants to offer degrees in radical animal rights activism Animal Protection Studies.  This calls for buying a smoker tonight, and grilling up some tasty, tasty BBQ this weekend.

Looks like United Bowhunters of Pennsylvania are taking a stab at getting the ban on hunting on Sundays in Pennsylvania repealed, at least for them.  Even though I think Sunday hunting should be allowed, in general, I would support this more limited measure, if it can be passed.  Might be a good thing for NRA to hop on board with, to smooth over frayed relations with the bowhunting community over the crossbow issue.

The Hog Blog takes a pretty detailed look at California’s proposed extension on the lead ammunition ban.   It doesn’t look good.

And that’s the second hot topic… proposed regulation changes that will bring small game and upland birds under the lead ammo ban.  Why?  Are condors eating tree-squirrel gut piles, or feasting on the remains of hunters’ quail?  Not bloody likely.  Then what is the purpose of the expansion to a bill that is specifically intended to protect the California condor?

It was never about the California Condor.  That was just the rhetoric.  They are expanding it because, quite honestly, they can.  As long as Condors get sick, and hunters can be blamed for it, it will be the excuse necessary to every increasing restrictions.  That’s what these people do.

It has to mystify Wayne Pacelle why hunters are so eagar to allow themselves to be divided and conquered, but that’s what often happens.  Take a look at this:

The in-your-face animal rights group – which all too often gets confused for the American Humane Society, a genuine animal-welfare organization – suddenly wants hunters to join forces with them.

You read that right. One of the nation’s most stridently anti-hunting animal rights groups wants hunters to join them in a “friend of the court” action designed to influence an upcoming Supreme Court decision.

That upcoming Supreme Court decision is US vs. Stevens, which Eugene Volokh is looking at briefing, on the opposite side of the issue from HSUS.  Pacelle wouldn’t waste his time with asking if he didn’t know he might be able to find a few suckers.  But imagine getting a federal felony indictment for buying a dove hunting video in Michigan, because your buddy in Texas invited you come down for a hunt, and suggested you buy a certain video for some pointers.   That’s what this law could potentially do.

I hope hunters will start wising up, and realize there’s no standing apart.  If they want their sport to survive, they need to treat HSUS as a mortal enemy.  Anything they do that touches any aspect of hunting must be resolutely opposed.