Hunting – Page 6 – Shall Not Be Questioned

Obama Administration Creates HSUS Wet Dream

If you haven’t yet read about the Missouri family being fined $90,643 for selling a few rabbits, then you should go read this story now. They are in no way accused of mistreating animals. In fact, they were recognized by folks in the area for their incredible quality and how well they treat them. That’s why a pet store started buying some off of them. And when they didn’t fill out the right paperwork, well, that brings down the force of the federal government on you.

But what’s telling about this story is that the USDA staff have repeatedly said they are stepping up enforcement of these laws – even if it means fining families $90K for paperwork violations – and that they intend to use these kinds of cases in order to teach a lesson. And where do we get that directive? Directly from the HSUS Change Agenda for Animals presented to the Obama administration at the beginning of his term. Here’s the portion relevant to the Missouri case:

U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
3) Enforcement – …increase oversight of key federal laws (…Animal Welfare Act (AWA)…); …impose strong penalties (not suspension of fines, as is so typical now); …resume issuance of press releases on enforcement actions to maximize deterrent impact…

Hunters, you better pay attention. PAGunRights already outlined all of the provisions in the “Change Agenda” that go after your participation in the outdoor sports. They won’t ban it directly, but they’ll make your life hell with the full force of the federal government.

Banning Dog Training in Indiana

HSUS is pushing to ban a form of dog training known as penning. I don’t honestly know much about this, but dogs, being a certain variation of canis lupus, sort of naturally do this:

Penning involves releasing hunting dogs in enclosed areas to chase foxes and coyotes that have been taken from the wild through trapping. The intent, supporters say, is not to capture or kill the wildlife but merely to train the dogs to hunt.

So if a pack of dogs chases down and kills a fox just generally, that’s just mother nature, but if people do it, it’s wrong? These people have a warped sense of morality. Nature is brutal and cruel. Comparing training a hunting dog to dog fighting is ridiculous. Dog fighting is banned largely because of the crime that tends to go along with it, and also because the only way you can generally train dogs, which are social animals, to maul each other to death, is by severely mistreating them. It takes some training to get a dog to hunt, but chasing animals down is kind of what they do instinctively.

I’m going to guess the purpose of this exercise that HSUS wants to ban is teaching the dogs not to rip the hell out of whatever they manage to capture. That would make me believe that the supporters are correct… that killing the prey is not the goal. But I also wouldn’t be surprised if that doesn’t happen from time to time. Then again, I’m not sure why I should care any more than when a pack of wolves successfully takes down a Bison.

Being un-PC

I’m not always the biggest fan of Congressman Don Young. But when I read his comments about why he is publicly declining an award from HSUS, I *heart* him.

Alaskan Congressman Don Young refused an award this evening from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Society Legislative Fund that would have honored his work for animals in 2010. While capitalizing on the good work of local humane societies that shelter, spay, and neuter animals, the HSUS does not own, operate, or directly control a single animal shelter in our country, despite a budget of well over $100 million.

â€œHSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award,â€ said Rep. Young. â€œLocal animal shelters and humane societies do excellent work by caring for neglected and homeless animals, and through their spaying and neutering programs. This organization, however, has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. Instead they prey on the emotions of big-hearted Americans. They flash images of abused animals on our television screens to raise money that will eventually go to pay their salaries and pensions, not to helping better the lives of these animals. They run anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and are of the same cloth as PETA and other extremist organizations. I can only guess that I was to receive this award due to my support of the Wildlife Without Borders program, which develops wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity. That program is true conservation; what this group wants is preservation. To accept this award would be supporting their manipulative ways and misguided agenda, and I want no part of that.â€

Because HSUS is so good at what they do – lying & misleading Americans into believing that they are giving to help their local shelters – it’s really tough for a politician to take a stand against them. It’s times like this that I remember Ronald Reagan’s attitude on political agreement.

Major Victory Over HSUS in Iowa

Yesterday the legislature passed a bill creating a dove hunting season, and today the Governor signed it. This bill was opposed very strongly by the Humane Society of the United States, who say that people don’t want this gentle bird of peace to be hunted. Apparently enough Iowa legislators thought, “Screw that, peace is tasty wrapped in bacon and basted with maple syrup,” to get this done.

More on PGC Public Range Regulations

Bitter got the Pennsylvania Game Commission on the phone and asked them some questions about the new permit requirement for public shooting ranges in Pennsylvania. I think a lot of people will object to the fact that only $200,000 of $11,000,000 in Pittman-Robertson funds goes to range maintenance. This is especially true when you consider handguns make up more than half of PR funds, and very few handguns are used for hunting.

In effect, the whole of the shooting community is subsidizing hunting. This will no doubt be a controversial statement, but I think that shooters should accept this state of affairs. Until this past year, hunting numbers had been in decline, while hunting license fees have been relatively stable, and not kept up with inflation. This means in real terms, state wildlife management budgets have shrunk. Increasing budgets for shooting ranges would mean decreasing budgets to support hunting programs, or raising hunting license fees, which will only serve to drive more people out of the sport.

A lot of people are going to argue that the baby is sick, probably isn’t going to make it to shore, and we’d be far better off just throwing it off the life boat preemptively, so that we can use the supplies for the rest of us. The problem is, hunting is a critical part of this fight, and we’re going to be far weaker politically if we toss that baby over. We have hunting numbers on the upswing. Perhaps that will continue. Time will tell.

PGC To Charge for Public Range Use

Looks like the Game Commission is looking to require either a valid PA hunting license, or a range permit to be able to use PGC ranges throughout the state. Considering that PGC is funded with hunting license fees, and these ranges are maintained solely by the PGC, I think this is a fair move. Anyone who’s frequented Pennsylvania ranges knows they are crowded and poorly maintained. This strikes me as a fair way to manage the resource, provided the fees for the range permits are funneled into maintaining the ranges. Looks like there will be provisions for taking guests and kids too, without them also needing a range permit.

Hunting Numbers Up

SayUncle reports hunting licenses are up 3.6 percent during a one year period from 2008 to 2009. If I had to conjecture on why, I’d wager a lot of hunters that have been out of the field for a while are headed back to put meat on the table during lean times.

I’m betting this isn’t the kind of hope and change the Obama Administration was banking on.

Taking the Times to Task

NSSF’s Stephen Sanetti writes to the New York Times about their editorial lamenting lead in ammunition, suggesting such a move would gut most of the federal tax dollars that go to wildlife conservation. Of course, take a look at the letter right below it, and you’ll see these types aren’t going to be swayed by argument. They are zealots who have no idea where food comes from.

New Jersey Bear Hunt a Success

But it might not be enough:

A study commissioned by the state Division of Fish and Wildlife and performed by wildlife biologists at East Stroudsburg University estimated the number of bears in two study areas of northwest New Jersey at almost 3,500. There were 589 bears killed in the hunt, which is 17 percent of the population. In spite of the culling, biologists believe there will be at least 800 cubs born in winter dens and emerging next spring. In other words, the culling was designed to reduce the rate of black bear population growth. There will be more black bears next year but the number will more likely be about 3,700 instead of 4,300.

That’s an unbelievable number of bears for as small a habitat as New Jersey’s forested areas represent. But even if the bear population is still growing, the hunt will benefit New Jerseyans by culling the bears that are least fearful of humans, leaving the survivors being the ones who are adept at avoiding us.

Overhauling Hunter Ed

I’m glad to see NRA seeing the need here. I think the establishment of these classroom programs was a mistake, and has created a barrier to entry for hunting it can ill afford in the 21st century. Much better would be an apprenticeship program, with certification available for hunters who want to mentor new hunters. I strongly believe there need to be a variety of ways potential hunters can get educated. The one-size-fits-all approach isn’t working. NRA is pushing online courses, which apparently only Indiana is investigating, with other states threatening to cease recognizing Hoosier hunters as having completed the requirement in retaliation.

I suspect the greatest resistance to this will come from hunters themselves, who I’ve consistently believed are the greatest enemies of their own sport. It’s is very important for the shooting community to save hunting, but I’m not that optimistic. I think hunting will continue to decline, as previous generations of hunters reflexively resist change, and actively help hunting’s enemies to eliminate forms of the sport they don’t approve of. Sorry to be grim, but if there’s a survival instinct in the hunting community, I haven’t seen it.