ANTI's Attack Washington Animal Owner/Sportsman Champion Rep. John Dingell

[Bob Kane]

Dear SAOVA Friends,

There's an extremely important fight taking place in Washington this
week. You need to understand what's at stake and protect your
horse ownership interests. A cabal of California-based ultra-radical animal rightist
Democrats is attempting to topple Rep. John Dingell as head of the
powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee and replace him with
Rep. Henry Waxman. John Dingell is the dean of the House and is the
highest profile and most influential supporter of sportsmen and
animal owners in the U.S. Congress. See his legislative
accomplishments at http://www.cookpolitical.com/node/2404 John is
also an avid big game hunter and waterfowler, a dog owner and has
served on the boards of NRA and Ducks Unlimited. He has never let us
down and has repeatedly gone to bat for us on hunting, fishing,
conservation, animal and gun ownership, influencing other legislators.

Chairman Dingell was one of a handful of Democrats who voted against
HSUS's AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER PREVENTION ACT in 2006. This bill
inserted the federal government into the life or death decisions of
equine owners. His forceful and elegant condemnation of HR503 was
memorable.

September 7, 2006 Floor Statement on HR503, AMERICAN HORSE SLAUGHTER
PREVENTION ACT at CR H6323

Mr. DINGELL. I love the people who are pushing this bill, but it is
a bad bill. It is triumph of emotion over common sense. We have
before us a solution, a poor one, to a nonexistent problem.

We have many things that need to be addressed in this Congress,
but here we are putting on the floor a piece of legislation poorly
thought out, without having had proper hearings or proceedings, over
the opposition of a committee, when we have many other things that
need doing; health care for Americans, minimum wage, a budget deficit
of terrifying proportions, and the appropriations bills and the
budget have not yet been completed. While the Nation is at war,
working families struggle to make ends meet, and government runs
record deficits the leadership has put this curious piece of
legislation on the floor.

The bill would eliminate humane slaughter of horses. If there is a
complaint about how the horses are being slaughtered or transported,
there is a way for this body to address that, and I am sure in good
will this body would in the exercise of its oversight powers do
exactly that.

The bill does not count for the high cost of caring for these
unwanted animals, nor does it consider the impact that this
legislation is going to have on the environment.

You know, we have a curious situation where we are going to have
to wind up cremating every horse that dies in the country, or we are
going to have to incinerate them. I have no idea how we are going to
dispose of a huge number of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds of horse each time
one of these events happens.

Now, basic care costs $1,800. There is no requirement here that a
person sell or slaughter his horse. The owner of the horse can do
what he wants with it. That makes eminent good sense to me.

But I don't think anyone has thought out the consequences of this
legislation, what is going to happen with regard to the massive
number of horses that are going to have to be incinerated or cremated
and the consequences of that with regard to the environment.

This is a bad piece of legislation. It should be rejected.

-------------------------

HR503 passed that day, but failed in the Senate. The extremely
heavily lobbied, ill-conceived measure didn't receive a floor vote in
2007-2008.

Literally, without exception, Mr. Waxman and his group attempting to
unseat John Dingell are animal rights zealots who have been endorsed
and funded by the anti-animal owner, anti-hunting Humane Society of
the U.S. (HSUS). HSUS considers this sub group its hard core
strongest supporters. They introduce dozens of ill-conceived animal
rightist bills every year. It's critical that a very senior, high
profile moderate Democratic committee chairman such as John Dingell
not be dragged down by these elements. Should these radicals succeed,
an experienced and meaningful voice will be muted and the next
Congress will take decided shift to the left in all legislative
areas.

ACTION REQUEST: This week, as soon as possible, telephone and email
all House Democrats and urge that they retain John Dingell as
chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The caucus vote
will occur on either November 17 or 18, 2008 and newly elected
members will have a voice.

Please share this message widely.

Susan Wolf

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance - http://saova.org/
Issue lobbying and working to identify and elect supportive
legislators

[Equibrit]

Wolf !

[Bob Kane]

Waxman Coup Worries Moderates
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
November 10, 2008

Facing the prospect of a liberal surge in House Democratic senior ranks, party moderates in the Blue Dog and New Democrats coalitions are banding together to make sure centrist lawmakers prevail in two critical internal fights.

Leaders of the two groups were in talks last week to plot rallying support for Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) in his bid to beat back a challenge for his gavel from liberal Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and to enlist Rep. Joe Crowley (N.Y.), a New Democrats leader, to run for the vice chairmanship of the Caucus.

The coordination marks a departure for the groups, which have not traditionally worked together, and a shared fear that with Democrats preparing to take control of all levers of political power, moderates could get steamrolled by emboldened liberals.

“We’re very concerned about the direction that some are trying to move our majority,” said Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.), Blue Dog co-chairman for communications.

Leaders of both groups were working the phones last week to round up support for Dingell, the 27-term dean of the House, in his counteroffensive against Waxman’s surprise challenge. Ross and Reps. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.) and John Tanner (D-Tenn.), both senior Blue Dogs, joined Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the New Democrats, on Dingell’s 26-member team.

“There are definitely conversations going on” among leaders of the groups to find support within their respective ranks for Dingell, a senior New Democrats aide said.

Dingell and Waxman aides alike are trying to frame their contest as centered on who will make the most effective legislator — and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), an ally of both, likewise played down the notion that the fight will highlight an ideological rift in the Caucus. But Dingell, an ardent defender of his home-state auto industry, and Waxman, an ally of environmentalists, have taken dramatically different approaches to climate change and energy issues in the past — debates expected to be prominent next year.

It is not yet clear how strongly New Democrats will rally to Dingell’s defense. With 60 members, they present a vote-rich source of support. But the group emphasizes green technology and high-tech innovation — priorities that are at times at odds with the manufacturing base Dingell champions.

Leaders of the groups are working together to draft Crowley into a leadership bid.

Ross said he and other Blue Dog leaders called Crowley last week and encouraged him to jump into the race for the Caucus vice-chairmanship, the fifth-ranking slot in leadership. Crowley, who lost a bid for that post in early 2006, has not yet announced whether he will run. So far, Reps. Xavier Becerra (Calif.) and Marcy Kaptur (Ohio) have entered the race. Also thought to be eyeing the race are Reps. Kendrick Meek (Fla.) and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.).

Crowley is not a Blue Dog, but Ross said members of his group understand that the New Yorker would be their best shot at adding a moderate to the leadership team. It reflects a recognition that Blue Dogs themselves, mainly white Southerners from rural districts, can’t run one of their own and hope to win over a majority of a heavily diverse Caucus representing mostly urban and suburban areas.

With a Crowley bid, the moderate faction would in effect be hoping to recover a leadership seat they are losing with the exit of Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) — a New Democrat with razor-sharp instincts. Emanuel announced last week he is quitting the House to take a job as President-elect Obama’s chief of staff.

Taken together, the contests present key tests of an unformed alliance between the groups that could prove a force in the next Congress. But much remains in the air. The groups have at times struggled to maintain unity within their own ranks. And it is not yet clear how they would work together to shape the agenda next year.

Aside from broadly centrist tendencies, the two groups don’t have much in common. While most Blue Dogs represent socially conservative, rural districts, most New Democrats hail from socially progressive, suburban districts. On policy, Blue Dogs are fiscal hawks that have been singularly focused on defending pay-as-you-go budgeting rules. New Democrats have trained their attention on promoting free trade and a high-tech agenda. They mostly backed the Wall Street bailout, which split the Blue Dogs, and are now focused on regulatory modernization of the financial markets.

“I can’t even wrap my brain around how that would work in an Obama administration,” a senior New Democrats aide said. “There will be conversations, but it’s premature right now.”

Ross said the groups will work in concert to prevent a liberal overreach that would spell a repeat of the mistakes Democrats made in the early 1990s. “We’re not going to be the most popular folks in our party, but we’re going to ensure that we as a party govern from the middle and not the extremes,” he said. “And we’ve got the votes to keep that from happening.”

Against the backdrop of the ideological rift, the fight over the chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce panel continued to rage on Friday, with both sides deploying their whip teams to sew up support among their colleagues.

While Waxman’s announcement last week caught Dingell flat-footed, whispers of a coup attempt by the Californian have persisted in Dingell circles for months. In June, in a move Dingell allies insist was unrelated, the Michigan Democrat backed off his longtime resistance to opening a leadership political action committee and founded the Wolverine PAC. Corporate donations poured in, and Dingell tapped the funds to spread about $80,000 to moderate incumbents and challengers, according to CQ MoneyLine.

Waxman has been using his own account to engender goodwill with colleagues for considerably longer. While Dingell is one of the most recent Democrats to kick off such a fund, Waxman was the first House lawmaker to open a leadership PAC, founding his L.A. PAC in the late 1970s to boost his bid for a subcommittee gavel. Waxman used the account to dole out about $238,000 to Democrats this cycle.

[Beverley]

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.

[Bob Kane]

Wolf, wolf? Everyone's an expert, all of a sudden. I happen to consider John Dingell a personal friend and worked with him the 80's. His office asked for this help. Smart DC lobbyists say this is 50/50 today. Nancy Pelosi wants John Dingell taken down, but know-it-alls like you have figured it out and already have a whip count. Right?

I've nothing to do with Hokieman, but have a word of warning. What comes around, goes around for MFHA hunts and foxhunters.

[Beverley]

I happen to consider John Dingell a personal friend and worked with in the 80's. His office asked for this help.



To be honest, Bob, I don't believe you.

Nor do I put much stock in your knowledge of the workings of the Congress.

I'll spare you the history of energy policy that weighs strongly here. If you really did work with Dingell in the 80s, you ought to know it cold. But I'll note that you have a nasty tendency to threaten any foxhunter that dares to disagree with you. It surely doesn't garner you any brownie points, nor, by extension, your cause.

[Bob Kane]

To be honest, Bob, I don't believe you.

Nor do I put much stock in your knowledge of the workings of the Congress.

I'll spare you the history of energy policy that weighs strongly here. If you really did work with Dingell in the 80s, you ought to know it cold. But I'll note that you have a nasty tendency to threaten any foxhunter that dares to disagree with you. It surely doesn't garner you any brownie points, nor, by extension, your cause.

You want honesty and perspective? You think this post is a lie and idiotic? I'll match my first hand knowledge of every energy bill and oversight hearing in Energy and Commerce during the 80's with anyone but John's professional staff. You don't want to go there, believe me. It would bore this list and demonstrate again that you have too much time on your hands posting trash on this and any other subject that amuses you 2-3 times per day, every day ad nauseam.

Nasty is sometimes required. Lead, follow, or get out of the damn way. I don't know how Congress works? I made a very good living proving you are wrong. Also see http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp

[Beverley]

Same Bob Kane that worked in Lisle Reed's shop, if memory serves? Okay, that explains a lot.:)

BTW your link didn't work, but I think I found the article you intended for me to read. Amusing that you moved the Energy Dept's existence up by three years. To me, an indication that facts aren't all that important to you.

One could ask who has too much time on their hands if you track how many posts I put up in any particular time frame? Amazing.

I'll leave it to readers to amuse themselves with your inconsistencies if that is their desire. My bottom line remains the same. You are not doing hunting any favors by your posts. Quite the contrary, I'm afraid.

[Bob Kane]

The link Meet Legislative Legend & Lobbyist BOB KANE, SAOVA (http://www.thedogpress.com/ClubNews/06_SAOVA_Bob_Kane_Prt1-08.asp), my 2006 interview regarding the defeat of HSUS's PAWS bill and SAOVA is corrected.

To the best of my knowledge, I never met Lisle Reed. You're wrong again, but volumes of contrary facts don't seem to slow you. You just duck, weave and blow smoke about the timing of FEO/FEA/DOE. That's low level insider baseball stuff and has no relevance to this discussion. The general public doesn't care who worked seven days per week during the Arab Oil embargo and what the sign on the door said, only that I did my job moving fuel.

COH's user profiles contain a poster's frequency. There's no mystery or counting involved. You and Equibrit have posted here 7869 times and average 4.6 posts per day, day after day, year around. Have you no other life? I now better understand why Dennis Foster prefers to deal with Masters and foxhunters with some stature and substance.

Steve Kopperud's a top-notch solid lobbyist for AG interests. Read his recent interview at http://www.cattlenetwork.com/Content.asp?ContentID=267063 It will give you an idea of how and why HSUS is winning this fight. One of the keys is strong leadership and focused dedication. You very rarely see the anti's taking shots at one another since Wayne Pacelle took over as HSUS CEO. In case you missed the news, sportsmen and animal owners lost big-time last week and the next eight years will be hell, starting with the possible toppling of John Dingell, our highest profile Washington supporter.

I received a very gracious hand-written note from Chairman Dingell after the Horse Slaughter bill vote. He thanked me for my kindness and friendship and suggested we might meet in the woods hunting. My goal this week is to see that if we do meet, he's still Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

[Equibrit]

I think you've out-stayed your welcome ...........Bob.

[CarrieK]

Bob, I didn't have an opinion on you or your posts, I also lurk over at FOL and have seen your posts, again with no opinion one way or the other. But really, you've stated your concern re: Congressman Dingell, fair enough, but your responses to folk who question you and who disagree are in a manner contrary to the tone of this forum.

[Bob Kane]

Bob, I didn't have an opinion on you or your posts, I also lurk over at FOL and have seen your posts, again with no opinion one way or the other. But really, you've stated your concern re: Congressman Dingell, fair enough, but your responses to folk who question you and who disagree are in a manner contrary to the tone of this forum.


Carrie-
Your observation regarding COH's usual decorum and tenor is well taken. However, I believe your comment is otherwise misdirected. Please review this thread carefully. I posted it here because I thought the Dingell-Waxman situation was important to U.S. horse owners and sportsmen and woman. Literally immediately thereafter, within nine minutes, an unknown Equibrit did a drive by. Beverley Heffernan followed up, rudely challenging me, calling me a liar and idiotic and saying I posted drivel. Further, she questioned my background and bona-fides. Not much equivocation or decorum there.

At post #7, I finally gave Ms Heffernan a personal retort as well as a SAOVA/Bob Kane lobbying tutorial that many in the US already know. The response from Equibrit and Ms. Hefferman: "Whatever." Not "We see your point, we'll make some calls for Mr. Dingell, or thanks, just get lost."

FOL listgod Matt Simpson is a left-wing Dennis Kucinich supporting wimp, but there some strong, animal rights threat savvy folks on that list. I don't know what to make of this largely silent group. It may not matter.

[Beverley]

Disagreeing with someone is not being rude.

I will challenge you or anyone else I believe to be posting inaccurate or misleading information, when I believe it to be damaging the pro-hunting cause. If you don't like it, tough, I don't particularly care. Your credibility with me is still zero based on this post and past examples of your work. One person's opinion. Get Over It. Or continue to fuss and fume and make snide remarks, makes no difference to me, it only reflects poorly on you and SAOVA.

I'll leave it to reasonable people to form their own opinions on how or whether an interview in a dog magazine makes one a 'legend.'

[Equibrit]

just get lost."


Need I say more ?

[wateryglen]

Personally I absolutely agree with the other posters. The sky is NOT FALLING!! Describing the next 8 years as hell?!!! Why bless your heart!!!:rolleyes::rolleyes::uhoh::uhoh::uhoh::uho h::uhoh:
How do you figure getting your message across or trying to mobilize support when you come on here and insult us & our fellow foxhunters AND our organization. Your real message; however valid is totally lost IMHO!
You have to be nice!! Otherwise.....buh bye!!!

And please don't assume we aren't concern about politics....or that we don't/can't mobilize; we are maybe just more polite! Such is the tradition of OUR sport.

[linquest]

Insulting someone who's not even involved with this thread on a post about decorum? :no:

[flyingchange]

Bob,

I see you are in Madison. Who do you fox hunt with? Thanks

[Bob Kane]

K Street Quietly Comes to Dingell’s Aid
By Anna Palmer Roll Call Staff
November 13, 2008, 10:18 a.m.
With the gavel for the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee hanging in the balance, Democratic lobbyists are rallying behind current Chairman John Dingell (Mich.), as he tries to fend off a well-publicized power grab for the job by Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.).
While discussions for House leadership races are typically done at the Member level, several former Dingell staffers said that hasn’t stopped them from working the phones to put in a good word for the Capitol Hill denizen.
In particular, K Street has sought to convince members of the Blue Dog Coalition, the Congressional Black Caucus, and the New Democrats to back Dingell against Waxman, the chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
“Lobbyists are doing intelligence gathering, talking to lawmakers they are on a first-name relationship basis with,” said one lobbyist, who has made calls to drum up support for Dingell.
Still, lobbyists said their activity has been tempered by not wanting to appear too far out in front of Dingell’s Capitol Hill whip team.
There is also concern among lobbyists that Waxman could try to paint Dingell as being too close to downtown.
“For folks on K Street it’s just not wise to get too actively involved,” said the lobbyist.
The House Democratic Caucus is expected to vote in a secret ballot on the chairmanship next week.
Since he was first elected in 1955 to fill the seat of his father, Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-Mich.), the younger Dingell has amassed a formidable K Street presence.
His network spans the health care, energy, manufacturing and telecom industry sectors.
Dingell has forged strong ties with former senior aides-turned-lobbyists, including John Orlando of CBS Corp., Ryan Modlin at the National Association of Manufacturers, Marda Robillard of Van Scoyoc Associates, and Alan Roth of US Telecom. He’s also close to Reid Stuntz of Hogan & Hartson and solo practitioner Michael Barrett.
Dingell’s Chief of Staff Michael Robbins is primarily running his whip operation. Robbins reached out to Dingell alumni and friends with a late-night e-mail last Thursday, acknowledging that many had offered “support and assistance.” The e-mail missive included talking points and press clips for them to use. Further, Robbins asked K Streeters to “gather intelligence” from Members and staff.
After receiving their marching orders, lobbyists said they have been quietly reaching out to lawmakers and helping staff strategize potential pickups in the chairmanship race to ensure that Dingell would continue to run the committee.
Notwithstanding the call for downtown’s help, Dingell spokeswoman Jodi Seth said her boss’s focus is on Capitol Hill.
“Chairman Dingell has long-standing relationships with lots of people in Washington who have called and offered their help, but Dingell sees this as an election among Members of Congress,” Seth said in an e-mail.
Waxman’s spokeswoman declined to comment about the gavel race.
For many it’s not just about loyalty to Dingell.
Should Waxman be successful in his attempt to oust Dingell, he would wield considerable power as the House gets ready to tee up climate change and health care reform. That, in turn, could force companies into a far more defensive lobbying posture since Waxman is likely to call for much stricter regulations against industry.
Although Waxman’s move to wrest control of the committee from Dingell appeared to catch the Michigan lawmaker by surprise, rumors have been swirling for weeks that Waxman might make a move for the enviable post.
Both Waxman and Dingell have long had financial support from industry as the No. 1 and No. 2 Democrats on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Coming from the home state of the Big Three automakers, Dingell has received more than $625,000 over the past two decades from automakers, more money than all other Members of the House have received from the industry since 1989, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Waxman has also had generous contributions from industry, including insurance company Aflac, the American Hospital Association, and the American Medical Association, all of which have large stakes in the upcoming health care debate.
Both Members also have leadership political action committees, which can be used to curry favor with fellow Members. Since opening the Wolverine PAC in June, Dingell has spread the wealth to colleagues, contributing about $80,000 to moderate incumbents and challengers, according to CQ MoneyLine.
Waxman has long had a leadership PAC, founding LA PAC in the late 1970s. He has contributed about $238,000 to Democrats this cycle.
While walking softly is the norm downtown in leadership races, the National Mining Association is one industry group openly supporting Dingell’s retention of the chairmanship.
“It strikes us that Chairman Dingell is more likely coming from Detroit to have a sensitivity to the current economic plight of the country when he looks at the various serious issues before the committee than Mr. Waxman, who is from Beverly Hills,” NMA spokesman Luke Popovich said.
The Sportsmen’s and Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance has also come out in support of Dingell. In an e-mail blast to more than 22,000 members, SAOVA urged its grass-roots network to contact their Member of Congress about what they argue is an important voice of moderation.
“He’s a voice of moderation where the large California cabal is scary as hell,” said Bob Kane, chairman emeritus of SAOVA.

[Bob Kane]

Steering Committee Divides Votes Between Dingell, Waxman
By Tory Newmyer
Roll Call Staff
November 19, 2008, 1:44 p.m.

The Democratic Steering and Policy Committee voted Wednesday to recommend that Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) replace Rep. John Dingell (Mich.) as the Energy and Commerce chairman in the next Congress.

But the vote, 25 for Waxman and 22 for Dingell, means both lawmakers are eligible for the gavel and the fight now goes before the full Democratic Caucus, which meets Thursday morning to decide the outcome.

Dingell currently chairs the Energy panel. Waxman is No. 2 on the committee, and launched a surprise bid to wrest the gavel in the wake of the Nov. 4 elections that enlarged the House Democratic majority.

Both contenders needed to gather at least 14 votes to advance to the full Caucus, which will convene at 9 a.m. Thursday. Neither man enters Thursday’s session with a distinct advantage, a reality underscored by Wednesday’s vote.

Indeed, the Steering Committee’s endorsement does not guarantee Waxman an edge before the full Caucus.

The last time Democrats faced a high-profile fight for a top committee slot, in 1996, Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D-Texas), the then-ranking member on the Banking and Financial Services Committee, failed to secure the backing of the Steering Committee. But when the contest reached the full Caucus, Gonzalez beat back challenges from the second- and third-ranking Democrats on the panel to retain his position.

Dingell backers tried to put a positive spin on the outcome of Wednesday’s vote, arguing that the Steering Committee does not reflect the diversity of the broader Caucus.

“It was a strong vote and better than a lot of us had expected,” Rep. Mike Doyle (D-Pa.) said in a conference call.

[lalahartma1]

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.


Quite true.

[altjaeger]

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.

[Beverley]

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.

[linquest]

All I can say is, can we keep this horse-related?

[altjaeger]

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!

[cssutton]

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.

[altjaeger]

Well, Waxman *has* replaced Dingell as the committee chairman as was feared.

[Moderator 1]

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

[Bob Kane]

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.

[linquest]

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:

[ArtilleryHill]

As a liberal foxhunter who hunts with quite a few other liberal foxhunters, THANK YOU, Linquest.

[cssutton]

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.

[Bob Kane]

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:

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.

[beanie&boomer]

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.

[Susan P]

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.




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:

[cssutton]

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.

[ArtilleryHill]

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?

[Beverley]

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:

1) 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.
2) 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.
3) 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.:)

[Beverley]

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.:)

[cssutton]

Beverly:

My only comment on all of that is:

Yes, AR's are always trying and will always try. But who we elect to office makes it either harder for them or easier because after all most of what they want has to be codified in law, although some of the cabinet positions do have awesome powers, as in the polar bear thing.

I agree that party is not as important as core beliefs. For instance in my own state HSUS bragged that they owned Elizabeth Dole. She lost and I am glad although Hagan will be worse, at least she is worse on all counts so it takes the agony of deciding whether you swallow your beliefs on one or more issues in order to get what you like on a few other issues.

Ex Senator Rick Santorum was another rino who supported, in fact co-sponsored with Dole the infamous PAWS bill.

So party is not as important as core beliefs.

But Bob is correct, if too blunt for you. When you look at the record and the past statements of the people who BO is appointing to cabinet positions and when you look at the makeup of the next senate, we are going to be in a much worse position than we have been. All hunters, whether hound or gun, are going to spend a lot of money and a lot of gut wrenching for the next four years.

Don't think that you can console yourself crying in your horse stall over the loss of hunting because HSUS considers using domesticated animals for man's pleasure is also cruel. It will take longer, but it will come.

Baloney, you say. It has not happened in England and foxhunting has been banned there for a while now with no trickle down to the horse industry.

But England does not have Wayne Purcell. The man is smart and he has $130,000,000 to spend every year.

By the way, I sign my name to everything I write and I will defend what I write.

Claude S. Sutton, Jr.

[Beverley]

Claude,

I think by now you might guess that I'm not the sort to console myself by crying in my horse's stall.

I do not agree that the coming years will be 'automatically' any more difficult for the cause of hunting than the past four, or eight. To be blunt, things economic and financial are going to take priority, as well they should. It's going to get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Instead of wailing and gnashing of teeth, those who care about hunting and the right approach to animal welfare should routinely be writing their elected officials (federal, state and local) and educating them, politely of course, about those things that matter to hunters. You speak of past records, I'm going to say those records are primarily a result of lack of knowledge on the subject. As you well know, HSUS can make a pitch that the average uninformed elected official (meaning most of them, regardless of party affiliation) feel like they are doing the right thing, just as they collect those millions from well meaning citizens who incorrectly assume that they are about helping animals.

Claude, you also know my full name as do many others here, it's not a secret and I'm not hiding from anybody. My point to Bob is nothing more than good manners and following the rules of a given forum in particular, and internet protocol in general. That's how you persuade people that your cause is just. Not rudeness and snide remarks coupled with inaccurate information, no matter how frustrated or hotheaded you might be. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Especially when people disagree with you.

[cssutton]

We have one senator who is a supporter of the right to hunt and own guns.

The house representative for my district is a woman, very conservative and who is a solid believer in the Contitution as it was written.

The problem is that I hunt in VA and have for the past 12 years exclusively.

No VA pol will read my mail, so I have to get Virginians interested enough to write their congress critter.

Thus my many posts on several sites.

Of course, I also contribute money to appropriate groups.

I also write VDGIF regularly.

Now if I only had $130,000,000 I might do some good.

Claude S. Sutton, Jr.

[fernie fox]

We had terrible times with Anti-hunting in UK for many years.

Things evolve,,,hunting is still happening in UK,in fact 5000 more folks are hunting now, than a couple of years ago.

My family back home are definately anti horse slaughter for human consumption[as are many many Brits.]

I see a new type of Foxhunter emerging in the UK.One that does care about animal welfare,they are responsable animal owners .

They have no qualms about public displays of their obvious love of their hounds and horses.

[The attitude that has gone,is that the horse and hounds are just a means to KILL something.]

UK hunting has entered a new era,,God bless them and good luck in future years.

[lalahartma1]

Wooo go Waxman! Sounds like he's a good guy!

[Susan P]

We could learn from the UK regarding animal welfare. There is a fine line between radical animal rights activism and animal welfare which is considering what's in the best interest of the animals.

I love animals sports, hunting, eventing, and I think the kindest way to kill an animal is hunting if a careful shot is taken and not a careless one. They get to live free and are caught unaware for the kill, no fear waiting in line watching your fate right in front of you, and hearing the terror.

Hunting can be the most humane method to kill an animal for food if you are a good hunter.



We had terrible times with Anti-hunting in UK for many years.

Things evolve,,,hunting is still happening in UK,in fact 5000 more folks are hunting now, than a couple of years ago.

My family back home are definately anti horse slaughter for human consumption[as are many many Brits.]

I see a new type of Foxhunter emerging in the UK.One that does care about animal welfare,they are responsable animal owners .

They have no qualms about public displays of their obvious love of their hounds and horses.

[The attitude that has gone,is that the horse and hounds are just a means to KILL something.]

UK hunting has entered a new era,,God bless them and good luck in future years.

[Bob Kane]

Rep. Dingell Makes History
February 11, 2009
By Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big John has outlasted them all.
After 53 years in the House, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) will stand alone today as the longest-serving Representative in history. Dingell will break the late Rep. Jamie Whitten’s (D-Miss.) record and surpass the other 10,000 or so legislators who have served in the House since 1789.

“Eighty-two years ago, I hit the jackpot,” he said this week in an interview, looking back on his life. “I was born in the United States of America. That’s the greatest thing that ever happened to me.”

Dingell, who last year was replaced as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, where he had been ensconced as the top Democrat since 1981, said he plans to stick around.

“At different times I’ve thought about moving on, but there’s always been something to do,” he said.

And the dean of the House has had an unrivaled résumé over the decades — as the chief defender of the Detroit auto industry, a stout conservationist and a man who has made his name in fighting to expand health care for all.

Dingell’s career both inside and outside Congress, outlined in a 35-page timeline presented by his office, offers a snapshot of the history of modern America.

In 1933, his father, John Dingell Sr., took office in the depths of the Great Depression when President Franklin D. Roosevelt launched the New Deal.

Young John Dingell walked the House floor for the first time at age 6. He became a House page when he turned 12, and he was in the chamber with his father in 1941 when Roosevelt gave the “Day of Infamy” speech that launched the United States into World War II.

Less than three years later, Dingell was drafted into the Army, and his unit of 210 soldiers was decimated in the Battle of the Bulge. Dingell, who spent the battle in the hospital suffering from meningitis, was one of 10 survivors.

Before he was elected to the House, Dingell was a park ranger — where he trapped bears, blew up beaver dams and fought forest fires — and a prosecutor. Both career paths turned out to be good training for what would come next.

After Dingell was elected to the House in 1955 to succeed his late father, he was stuck on what most would consider a backwater committee — the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, which no longer exists. But Dingell used the post to make his mark on landmark conservation legislation, often working with Republicans who were then deep in the minority. “Hardly any Democrats would show up to do these things,” he said.

He would play major roles in writing the Clean Air, Clean Water, National Environmental Policy and Endangered Species acts.

Dingell also, like his father before him, introduced legislation every Congress to provide universal health care, and he presided in 1965 over the vote creating Medicare.

After taking the Commerce chairmanship in 1981, Dingell made his committee known for fierce investigations and for his “Dingell-grams” warning departments to shape up.

Dingell, who has been a fierce defender of the House rules and regular order, also has a reputation for working across the aisle in what seems to be a bit of a lost art.

When Dingell took the committee gavel, he said he was “very scared” and spoke to a mentor, then-House Parliamentarian Lou Deschler. Deschler gave Dingell two rules.

“The first rule is you’ve got to be fair. The second is you’ve got to appear fair. ... I was impeccably fair.”

Dingell fought with Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in 2007 over major energy legislation, when at one point a frustrated Dingell urged Pelosi to let him build a bipartisan bill that would include new auto fuel-economy standards but also protect the industry from layers of state regulation.

“I’m going to get you a bill, not a Democratic bill, but a Democratic accomplishment,” he said to Pelosi.

Pelosi kept a tight hold over the energy bill, and the dust-up helped lead to Rep. Henry Waxman’s (D-Calif.) ascension to the top of the committee after the 2008 elections.

But Dingell continues to urge a bipartisan approach, pointing to successes such as the consumer product safety bill that passed last year without opposition.

“People don’t judge you whether you get a bill,” he said. “They judge you on what you get done.”

Dingell said he has always told his staff: “You go find the facts. We will cook the politics to suit the facts.”

Dingell said that too often, especially recently, the facts have been cooked to suit the politics by partisans on the far left and far right.

“The best legislating is done in the middle,” he said. “Everyone around here’s got something to say.”

Dingell, who recently signed on to a letter to House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) urging a return to regular order, blames former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) for warping the rules after the Republican revolution in 1994. “Gingrich started out this system of cooking the rules,” he said.

Dingell speaks with frustration about episodes such as the Medicare drug bill, which was drafted by Republicans behind closed doors.

“They wouldn’t let us in the room,” he said. Dingell voted against the drug benefit, even though he had first put in a bill to add prescription drugs to Medicare in 1966.

Dingell still speaks positively of Pelosi, despite their frequent sparring. “I happen to like Nancy,” he said. “Nancy’s a good Speaker. Her history is not yet written. This session is going to be a test of her ability. I’m going to try and make her a success.”

With the economy in a tailspin, Dingell, who remembers the Great Depression and refers to it frequently when discussing the current crisis, recalls his warning in 1999 when Congress and President Bill Clinton repealed part of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which limited the activities of commercial banks.

“I warned it would create an economic calamity. ... That’s exactly what freed up the banks to do all the stupid things they did.”

There are a few important goals left in his mind. Dingell is still trying to save the auto industry — noting that every other country is helping out their automakers during the fiscal crisis — and he hopes to put a few more capstones on his career, starting with enacting universal health care.

In fact, perhaps his biggest defeat came in 1993, when Clinton’s health care legislation died in Dingell’s committee. Dingell blames that failure on dithering by White House officials and hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the insurance industry to kill it. “I lost it by one vote and I couldn’t get it,” Dingell said with intensity and regret.

But he sees signs of hope. The business community is starting to understand that the U.S. health care system creates a competitive disadvantage. He notes that the Detroit auto industry spends $1,600 per vehicle on health care, compared with $750 on steel. If they had $1,600 to invest in the company, “they’d be flush,” Dingell said.

“I’m going to work like hell” to pass it, Dingell said.

Dingell also said he wants to get funding for a national park in his district commemorating the War of 1812 in time for the bicentennial and to complete a fish and wildlife refuge there.

And despite talk that he could be replaced by another Dingell, either his powerful wife, Debbie, or one of his four children, Big John sounds like he wants to stick around and set a few more records.

“There’s an old Polish saying, ‘Before you sell the bear’s hide, you first have to shoot the bear,’” he said. “This bear’s doing pretty good.”