Two anti-hunting groups are making a move to kill hunting. They’re looking to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) to publish a rule that would eliminate transporting harvested wild animals and most birds across state lines.
It is the most serious threat to hunting in the United States since Dan Ashe, former USFWS director, attempted to ban the use of traditional ammunition on federal lands. That attempt was rolled back by former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.
This attempt must be turned back by every hunter in America.
The Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council are co-opting COVID-19 fears to push their radical anti-hunting agenda in a petition to the USFWS and DOI.
They are ignoring reports of China’s potential complicity on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. Instead, they are faulting hunters as potential pathogen pathways and attempting to end hunting even in neighboring states.
The petition claims, “Pandemics caused by zoonoses – infectious diseases that jump from animals to people – are entirely preventable.”
The mechanisms they would impose include a complete ban on interstate transport of not just live animals, but also the meat, hide, horns, antlers and skulls of harvested animals. The petition doesn’t discriminate between a ban on species harvested internationally.
It also targets hunters who take animals in other states and transport them home, even if they’ve been professionally prepared by a butcher or taxidermist to safeguard against the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease.
The groups’ petition would amend the Lacey Act regulations to prohibit the importation, transportation or acquisition of wild animals. Since the USFWS regulates interstate transportation and importation of wild animals, that’s a death knell to hunting in the United States.
That means the trophy Texas buck wouldn’t be able to be brought home to Virginia, or South Dakota pheasants to South Carolina. A lifetime dream hunt of a Rocky Mountain elk would never fill a Florida freezer and an Alaska bear rug would never be able to come home to Oklahoma.
Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
The two anti-hunting groups – Center for Biological Diversity and Natural Resources Defense Council – are known extremist anti-hunting groups. Center for Biological Diversity has made suing the government a cottage industry.
They host a page on their website boasting of suing the Trump administration 266 times.
They attacked hunting by suing the Environmental Protection Agency for denying a previous petition to ban traditional ammunition.
A federal judge dismissed that suit. More recently, Center for Biological Diversity appealed a U.S. District Court’s decision to dismiss their allegation that the U.S. Forest Service allowing hunters to use traditional ammunition in Arizona’s Kaibob National Forest is a violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The group alleges that hunters shooting traditional ammunition is the same as industrial dumping of lead waste. The case was dismissed three times but is being appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the third time.
Natural Resources Defense Council has been party to many of the same lawsuits as Center for Biological Diversity. They found a cash cow in suing the federal government and agreeing to settle, particularly with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
They use tactics, including this one with the USFWS and DOI, to petition for a rule change and then sue the agencies when they believe the federal agency is taking too long. Natural Resources Defense Council sued the USFWS when wolves were delisted from the Endangered and Threatened Species Lists.
They were also party to the legal actions to end delisting the grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem.
The actions by these two groups to limit the ability for hunters to move legally harvested wildlife across state lines is a direct threat over 15 million people who buy hunting licenses in America each year.
That’s particularly concerning as the COVID-19 pandemic saw an unexpected surge in hunting license sales and hunters enrolling in safety courses to obtain licenses. One report showed hunting license sales were up by five percent overall, with a growth of 15 percent of women purchasing hunting licenses. New hunters showed a 26 percent increase in 2020.
These new hunters would be frozen out from experiencing different hunting traditions in other regions of America. They would be shuttered from hunting wild animals that exist in states other than their home state.
Hunting is Conservation
What’s more is these two groups are attempting to impose legislation through regulation. By petitioning the USFWS and DOI to promulgate rules to end the ability for hunters to fill their coolers in another state and bring home the meat, hides, antlers and horns, they’re attempting to bypass the legislative process.
They’re abusing a rule-making process to impose a radical anti-hunting agenda without lawmaker input. That’s concerning since 23 states enacted laws or have it written into their state constitution of an individual’s right to hunt and fish.
It’s not just hunting and hunters that would be harmed by this petition. The wildlife these groups claim to protect would be devastated by the potential harmful impacts. The North American Wildlife Model is predicated on hunting as a management tool and is responsible for the rebound and abundant wildlife all Americans enjoy.
Further, wildlife belongs to the public, not special interest groups. This is what makes it possible for all Americans to enjoy the outdoors for recreation, including hunting. It’s not a benefit of wealth or privilege.
The firearm industry has played a pivotal role in this success. Excise taxes collected from firearm and ammunition manufacturers are responsible for the recovery of America’s wildlife through the Pittman-Robertson Act, which has contributed over $14.1 billion since its inception in 1937.
The petition to halt hunting in its tracks is beyond irresponsible. It is dangerous and potentially harmful to America’s wild scenes.
This is a moment not just for USFWS and DOI to reject political special interests, but for every hunter, outdoorsman and woman to recognize how extremist organizations are weaponizing government bureaucracies against them.
–
As crime spirals out of control in Oregon, group seeking to ban hunting, fishing and trapping in ballot initiative
OREGON- While crime continues to spiral out of control in Oregon cities such as Portland, it must be gratifying to state residents that some in the state are laser-focused on issues such as eliminating hunting, fishing and trapping.
That is the hope of coastal elites in the state, who are hoping to put a dagger in Oregon’s tourism and sporting industries.
According to an op-ed in a publication called CFACT, a ballot initiative proposed for the 2022 ballot called Initiative Petition 13 (IP13), otherwise known as the Abuse, Neglect and Assault Exemption Modification and Improvement Act would ban the harvesting of any animal by hunting, fishing and trapping and would only allow a self-defense objection.
IP13 would also criminalize hunting for food and common breeding practices such as animal insemination, typically used for breeding horses, for example.
If you thought leftists were wacky already, this takes it to a whole new level. Proponents of this initiative say it will turn Oregon into a “sanctuary state” for animals and are hoping other states will follow Oregon’s example.
Supporters of IP13 have until June 22, 2022, to collect the 112,000 valid signatures necessary to get it on the ballot for the November 2022 election.
Ironically, the proponents of this measure are cutting off their nose to spite their face.
According to the author of the piece, Bonner Cohen, Ph.D., if this ballot initiative somehow becomes law, it would not only end the practices of hunting, fishing and trapping in the state, but would also have a significant, negative impact on all wildlife in Oregon due to eliminating the primary source of funding wildlife management efforts.
Without revenues from license fees, so-called Pittman-Robertson and Dingell-Johnson funds, the state’s Department of Fish and Wildlife will be unable to carry out its mission.
The Pittman-Robertson Fund was established in 1937, known as the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act.
The act authorizes that excise tax revenue from the sale of firearms and ammunition will be directed to state fish and game agencies for a variety of projects related to wildlife, conservation efforts and shooting programs. That tax currently amounts to 11%.
Dingell-Johnson, also known as the Federal Aid in Sport Fish Recreation Act, allows for a 10% excise tax on sport fishing and boating equipment.
The money can be used by the respective state to fund fishing and boating recreation management. That fund is a cooperative effort between state and federal wildlife agencies, the fishing tackle industry, anglers and boaters.
Any state law banning hunting and fishing would have a detrimental effect on revenues for wildlife conservation, reducing the number gained from these federal laws to near zero.
“It is quite ironic that proponents of this ill-advised campaign claim they want to protect animals, but this initiative will ultimately hamstring the men and women who have dedicated their lives to preserving wildlife through sound science-based conservation efforts,” said Jacob Hupp, associate director of state services at the Sportsmen’s Alliance.
“Unfortunately, there is no humor in this irony and the Sportsmen’s Alliance and our partners in Oregon are in the process of organizing to defeat this dangerous campaign that threatens the livelihood of Oregonians.”
The Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national organization that supports conservation programs.
According to 2018 data from Pew Charitable Trusts, the economic contributions to Oregon’s economy from hunting, fishing and so-called “wildlife watching” visits is staggering.
It accounted for over 5,500 jobs, $196 million in salaries and wages, $622 million in sales, $27 million in state and local tax revenue, and $45 million in federal tax revenue. In other words, it would have a devastating and substantial negative economic impact on Oregon.
Aside from the economic impact from banning fishing, hunting and trapping, the initiative would in essence criminalize everything from slaughtering livestock to typical animal husbandry practices, such as branding and dehorning cattle, castrating bulls, and docking horses, sheep and pigs, according to Mary Ann Cooper, vice president of public affairs for the Oregon Farm Bureau.
Stunningly, the measure would reclassify animal breeding and artificial insemination as sexual assault of an animal—a Class C felony.
The individual behind this ridiculous initiative measure is a man named David Michelson, described as a Portland animal rights activist.
Oregon is also not the only state where such a measure is being proposed.
A similar proposal is being put forth in Colorado, called the Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation (PAUSE) Act. Taken together, the two initiatives would ban animal agriculture in both states.
In Colorado, the economic impact from such a ban on only the hunting and fishing industries would be devastating, according to the Colorado Wildlife Council, where 25,000 jobs are supported by the two industries. They report that anglers contribute $2.445 billion annually to Colorado’s economy, while hunters result in a $843 million windfall for the state.
As the Council noted, license fees on hunters and fishermen accounts for most of the funding to protect and manage Colorado’s wildlife population, including managing threatened and endangered species programs, wildlife reintroductions and habitat conservation.
Were these two revenue sources eliminated, Colorado taxpayers would be on the hook for those funds. As always, the devil is in the details.
As Cohen wrote, those pushing the short-sighted initiative in Oregon have a very good chance of getting IP 13 on the ballot, noting that if they concentrate their efforts in cities such as Portland and Eugene, chock full of leftists who do not hunt or fish, they will likely gather enough signatures.
As he noted, this campaign will drive a further wedge between the urban areas of Portland, along with other urban coastal areas of the state, and rural parts of the state east of the Cascade Mountains. Ironically, this area is in the midst of a push to secede from Oregon and join the neighboring not-so-crazy state of Idaho. Passing of this measure may just move that effort into overdrive.
For more on the sheer insanity of these animal rights extremists, we invite you to:
DIG DEEPER
his editorial is brought to you by a former Chief of Police and current staff writer for Law Enforcement Today.
—
USA- Radio talk show host Michael Savage wrote a book called Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. While there is a lot of competition within the left for the biggest bunch of looney tunes, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has got to be at the top, or close to it.
First full disclosure. We love animals, especially dogs…and horses. Dogs are very important for law enforcement, act as important service animals for people with disabilities, and well…they’re just very loyal. However PETA takes the whole animal thing to an absurd level.
Breitbart reports that their latest screed is they are now urging people to stop using animal names as verbal insults to other people, claiming it acts as “supremacist language.” Seriously.
In a tweet, the organization of animal rights wackos said:
“Words can create a more inclusive world or perpetuate oppression. Calling someone an animal as an insult reinforces the myth that humans are superior to other animals & justified in violating them. Stand up for justice by rejecting supremacist language.”
Words can create a more inclusive world, or perpetuate oppression.
Calling someone an animal as an insult reinforces the myth that humans are superior to other animals & justified in violating them.
Stand up for justice by rejecting supremacist language. pic.twitter.com/HFmMWDcc5A
— PETA (@peta) January 26, 2021
So, it’s a “myth that humans are superior to other animals”? Perhaps PETA can inform us of some of the great accomplishments of animals. Such as, what great invention did they come up with that advanced civilization?
What drug have they developed that has cured disease? Have they found the cure for cancer? Have they solved the mystery of how socks get lost in the dryer? Have they figured out why people watch The View?
So, what has PETA’s shorts in a bunch? They came out with a list of insults on Twitter and said that by using animal names for such purposes, it “perpetuates ‘speciesism.’” Where the hell do they come up with this stuff?
Have a friend who refuses to ski down suicide hill in Vail because it’s too steep? PETA says, don’t call him a “chicken” because well, that’s an insult to chickens. Instead they suggest, call them a “coward.”
In a series of tweets, PETA continued including one which said that “anti-animal slurs degrade animals by applying negative human traits to certain species.”
They continued to denounce “speciesist” language as “harmful and inaccurate,” saying that pigs are “intelligent”, and snakes are “clever.”
Speciesist language isn’t just harmful, but it is also inaccurate.
Pigs, for instance, are intelligent, lead complex social lives, and show empathy for other pigs in distress. Snakes are clever, have family relationships, and prefer to associate with their relatives.
— PETA (@peta) January 26, 2021
Other suggested replacements offered by PETA, whose members appear to be clearly in need of a hobby include replacing “rat” with “snitch,: “snake” with “jerk,” “pig” with “repulsive,” and “sloth” with “lazy.”
PETA urges everyone who believes in equality and justice to take a look at their personal beliefs and the language they use, and break free of this outdated mindset that denigrates other animals.
Always be kind and consider not using insults at all.
— PETA (@peta) January 26, 2021
How long before you hear AOC start railing about “human supremacy” in addition to “white supremacy?” “Human privilege” perhaps?
Of course, the Twitter reactions were priceless. Here are a few as reported in Conservative Review:
“Come back to me about being less superior than animals when an anteater builds a house.”
come back to me about being less superior than animals when an anteater builds a house
— Ben (@thekingoxlade) January 27, 2021
“6 years vegan, please stop making us look ridiculous.”
6 years vegan, please stop making us look ridiculous.
— Jessica (@jessicakeogh) January 26, 2021
“LMAO but we ARE superior to animals; we are literally superior, mentally and in most cases physically; our intelligence is far past the intelligence of animals and we are justified in killing and eating them; we’re carnivores LOL. I guess I’m a supremacist.”
Lmao But we ARE superior to animals, we are literally superior, mentally, and in most cases physically, our intelligence is far past the intelligence of animals, and we are justified in killing and eating them, we’re carnivores lol I guess I’m a supremacist 😂🤷🏼♂️
— di-giorno (@monyprntrgobrrr) January 27, 2021
“Speciesism? I think that’s more when orgs like yours demonize and openly kill dogs and cats for the sin of being meat eaters while only caring about barnyard animals. You openly admit to murdering dogs and cats just for being homeless in this very thread, so…self-awareness?”
Specieism? I think that’s more when orgs like yours demonize and openly kill dogs and cats for the sin of being meat eaters while only caring about barnyard animals. You openly admit to murdering dogs and cats just for being homeless in this very thread, so..self awareness?
— Rachel 🇺🇸🇦🇲☦️ (@RaychelTania) January 28, 2021
PETA of course is known for their wacky take on animal rights. Last fall, they released video footage taken at “Gobbler’s Rest” at Virginia Tech in order to blame then-President Trump for “pardoned” turkeys living in squalid conditions.
“If the ceremony on the White House lawn means anything, these turkeys should be given a chance to live as turkeys should–but instead they’re serving a life sentence without so much as the opportunity to enjoy the outdoors,” said PETA Senior Vice President of Cruelty Investigations Daphna Nachminovitch.
She’s probably one of those asking to have her student loans for a gender studies degree forgiven by the federal government.
She added, “PETA is asking Virginia Tech to let us give these turkeys a chance to enjoy companionship, fresh air, and sunshine at a reputable sanctuary, as they deserve.”
As Michael Savage said…
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
