And So It Begins....The End of Hunting?

[Tantivy1]

Obama 'Regulatory Czar' has Secret Animal-Rights Agenda, Says Consumer Group
1/15/2009

Washington, D.C. (Vocus/PRWEB ) January 15, 2009 -- The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom said today that Cass Sunstein, the Harvard University Law School professor tapped by President-elect Obama to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, has a secret aim to push a radical animal-rights agenda in the White House. Sunstein supports outlawing sport hunting, giving animals the legal right to file lawsuits, and using government regulations to phase out meat consumption.

In a 2007 speech at Harvard University, Sunstein argued in favor of entirely "eliminating current practices such as … meat eating." He also proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."

The Center for Consumer Freedom's Director of Research, David Martosko, is available to discuss Cass Sunstein's likely impact on typical elements of American life that involve the use of animals. Sunstein's work could spell the end of animal agriculture, retail sales of meat and dairy foods, hunting and fishing, biomedical research, pet ownership, zoos and aquariums, traveling circuses, and countless other things Americans take for granted.

Mr. Martosko said: "Cass Sunstein owes Americans an honest appraisal of his animal rights agenda as America's top regulator. Americans don't realize that the next four years could be full of bizarre initiatives plucked from the wildest dreams of the animal-rights fringe. Think about every outrageous idea PETA and the Humane Society of the United States have ever had, and imagine them all having the force of federal law. This doesn't look good for hunters, ranchers, restaurateurs, biomedical researchers, or ordinary pet owners."

For an interview with Mr. Martosko about how Cass Sunstein's appointment will serve the radical animal rights movement's agenda in the White House, or for more information, contact Sarah Kapenstein at 202-463-7112.

[Beverley]

Patiently repeating the message...

Those of us who hunt need to be continually vigilant, not continually alarmist.

The executive branch cannot arbitrarily do anything to legalize animal rights, or outlaw hunting. In particular, the head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has no authority to enact laws. Sure, he might be expected to make recommendations. Continue to communicate, to Congress and to the White House, your steadfast support of both hunting and the humane treatment of all animals, and your steadfast opposition to radical agendas.

Some of us recall that President Reagan campaigned long and loud on his intent to abolish the Department of Energy as soon as he took office. You might notice that the Department of Energy is still there.:)

[Tantivy1]

[QUOTE= He also proposed: "We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

Sunstein wrote in his 2004 book "Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions" that "animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf."
[/QUOTE]

Maybe there is hope for us after all.

If they want animals to be allowed to bring suit...yes, this is sounding doable.

Anyone who would be happy to represent foxhounds file suit in order to allow them to continue the sport for which they have been carefully bred for for centuries?

To deny them their RIGHTS to continue their BIRTHRIGHT of foxhunting is cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention outright discrimination against them as a breed.

I smell a class action lawsuit on behalf of all foxhounds, American, English and PMDS, united may they stand! :)

[Tantivy1]

[QUOTE=Beverley;3806246]Patiently repeating the message...

Those of us who hunt need to be continually vigilant, not continually alarmist.

QUOTE]

Beverly,

Agreed, 100% in agreement with you.

However, is one to be labeled an alarmnist for merely posting a pertinent article?

Is not posting the article the gesture you suggest we do, keep on our toes in an effort to remain vigilant?

I do sadly but firmly believe there are those who would most definitely end it if they could and I see no harm done in keeping my head out of the sand and in trying to keep it out of the sand, I do not see myself as an alarmnist.

I would rather have the opportunity to hit the delete key than be ignorant.

[Beverley]

[quote=Tantivy1;3806282 However, is one to be labeled an alarmnist for merely posting a pertinent article?

Is not posting the article the gesture you suggest we do, keep on our toes in an effort to remain vigilant?

[/quote]

No, not at all, and yes, absolutely. I merely intended a friendly reminder.

[Jennifer Alcott]

Maybe there is hope for us after all.

If they want animals to be allowed to bring suit...yes, this is sounding doable.

Anyone who would be happy to represent foxhounds file suit in order to allow them to continue the sport for which they have been carefully bred for for centuries?

To deny them their RIGHTS to continue their BIRTHRIGHT of foxhunting is cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention outright discrimination against them as a breed.

I smell a class action lawsuit on behalf of all foxhounds, American, English and PMDS, united may they stand! :)

BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!

But oh dear...now I have to worry about Zorro suing (sueing?) me in an effort to make me lose those 20 (coughcoughokaymaybe40coughcough) pounds that I've gained. After all, he could claim that having to carry me with those additional pounds is cruel and inhumane.

Fortunately, my Aussies (AKA "The Crackheads") and my Border Collie puppy (soon to be known as "Crackhead Junior") won't have to sue my husband over their inalienable right to sleep on the bed with us, or nap on the leather sofa. The bed battle was won years ago, but the leather sofa issue was recently settled out of court by mandate of the Higher Authority in the Alcott Home (ME!). ;)

Humor aside, I'd rather know early on about the potential agenda of someone who is serving in a national leadership role than be blindsided. Forewarned is forearmed. Our nation, generally speaking, is going through the "honeymoon phase" with this incoming administration. Due to the historical significance of the election and the outcome, this is going to be a highly-charged and emotional time for the country. We do need to make sure that if we're going to be looking through rose-colored glasses, we at least need to be sure that the prescription is correct and that we're seeing things clearly.

[cssutton]

The polar bear is protected at the present level by cabinet level decision that has the force of law.

So one must not assume that because congress is not debating a particular subject that it is one we can ignore.

Please remember that these people have the ear of the president elect and that executive order can change our world overnight.

As in the recent Bush executive order making vast areas of ocean off limits to exploration.

He could have as well given an executive order making Virginia something whatever that would ban hunting.

I don't think there are many limits to executive orders, even though I do not pretend to have read the law on the subject.

Past examples, such as Clinton by executive order making coal fields in the far west closed to mining and many others of note lead me to believe that we have entered an area in government that should make all of us who are engaging in activities not understood by the general public and the idiots in congress very uneasy.

The handwriting is on the wall for those who are not blind.

Apparently no one in government believes in my sig.

I do believe that the term "alarmist" is misuded.

Most have to be alarmed to get off their butts and do anything other than make academic comments about the topic in general.

Apparently no one in government believes in my sig.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[ArtilleryHill]

However, is one to be labeled an alarmnist for merely posting a pertinent article?


It's worth noting that this wasn't an article; it's a press release by the Center for Consumer Freedom, trying to interest media in interviewing its director about their agenda. In other words, they have a reason to trumpet the story, and any potentially alarming effects of Sunstein's appointment that touch on the Center for Consumer Freedom's agenda, as much as possible. That's not to say that hunters should not always remain vigilant; as Beverley said, of course we should. But this particular document is designed to get maximum PR for the group in question rather than to provide cogent, objective, or thorough analysis of the issue.

[danceronice]

When it comes to hunters' rights--indeed the rights of anyone who owns animals or even eats meat--it's generally a good idea to pay attenion to CFCF's press releases. Sure, they have an agenda, but if you're a hunter it's an agenda that's often in your favor. If they are alarmed about someone, it's generally a good reason for me to be alarmed about them. You will almost never see objective analysis of anti-hunting propaganda in the general media as most, especially old-school newspapers and the networks, are run by editors who are against hunting and frequently private landowner and animal-owner rights in general. If it weren't for groups like CfCF, we would never hear about this at all. And anyone who says anything like Susntein said who's going to be in any sort of position to influence policy needs to be heard about. A lot.

[Tantivy1]

It's worth noting that this wasn't an article; it's a press release by the Center for Consumer Freedom, trying to interest media in interviewing its director about their agenda. In other words, they have a reason to trumpet the story, and any potentially alarming effects of Sunstein's appointment that touch on the Center for Consumer Freedom's agenda, as much as possible.... But this particular document is designed to get maximum PR for the group in question rather than to provide cogent, objective, or thorough analysis of the issue.


Interesting....because the second after I finished reading the press release my first question was - is this a hullabaloo and was it written, as you appear to believe, to get an interview or maybe to deliberately excite and alarm people (ex: dimwits like me)?

So I double checked a few things and yes, CS was appointed to this position, and yes, he has written a book on Animal Rights (very pretty dust jacket too) and yes, he thinks animals should have legal rights, etc.

SO, my point is, SO WHAT if the press release was written to get someone interviewed v. providing a thorough analysis of the issue?

The press release provided some basic FACTS that amazingly all appear to check out and additionally, I learned something! Can you believe, I actually learned something constructive and what's more, the stuff you imply to as "fluff" has led me to dig a little deeper and get a little of that analytic stuff you allude to!

Bottom line, l stand behind what I posted and I definitely DO CONSIDER IT WORTH POSTING and I am going to bed tonight....maybe a little more concerned and (hopefully) a little smarter and in no worse shape for having read a bloody press release.

[ArtilleryHill]

the stuff you imply to as "fluff" has led me to dig a little deeper and get a little of that analytic stuff you allude to!


Which is what you should always do. It is, in fact, what any responsible person writing an article--as opposed to a press release--also would have done, so you have, in a manner of speaking, become a bit of a citizen journalist, dare I say it! I didn't say the release wasn't factual. What I did say is that it was a press release, not an article, meaning readers should be prepared to dig for the truth before accepting it at face value--as we should for many articles, too! Especially in the age of the internet, it's sometimes easy for people to confuse the two, which is why, for example, PeTA press releases and newsletters sometimes get taken at face value by unwary readers as being "news" or factual, even when they're not.

My point is not that you shouldn't have posted it, but that everyone should always do as you have now done: try to discern what a document is, where it's coming from, what biases/agendas might be inherent in it, and then what is or is not factual about it. That's part of being a good, informed citizen, as well as a good, informed hunter.

You sound very triumphant about having done that, and well you should. It should be second nature for anyone living in today's age of easily manufactured, easily distributed "news ."

As for the idea that we will "never" see anti-hunting agendas covered in the mainstream media, well, I disagree about the word "never." You do see hunting covered favorably, often when hunting people have decided to make an effort to get their side of the story out with credible journalists, rather than writing off all editors, reporters, etc., as antis, just as antis label us all as toffs.

It's incumbent on hunters to get their point of view out there, of course, and it is certainly true that one always needs to decide who one can trust (both among the media and among our own lobbying groups; any lobbying group claiming to represent you can go off the rails and therefore ANY lobbying/advocacy group, even one you trust, should always be subject to a little healthy scrutiny from its supporters to keep it honest).

To accuse all general media and editors of being, as a matter of course, against hunting is unhelpful at best in getting hunting's message out there, as the Center for Consumer Freedom and any other group probably would tell you. As in the rest of human life, you decide who you can trust to be fair and go from there; writing them all off doesn't leave a lot of options for helping to educate the public about the value of hunting, and it also abandons the PR field entirely to the antis.

As it happens, due to my work I know a fair number of "media types" who hunt, both here and in England. And does anyone remember the CBS reporter from some years back--his name escapes me now--who hunted regularly and even did a good piece on the nightly news about hunting in Ireland? When PeTA activists were caught killing animals they claimed to be adopting from vet clinics in North Carolina, the local general media covered the story and the resulting trial without taking some defense of PeTA. Even that so-called bastion of the "elite liberal media," the New York Times, has, along with covering anti-hunting points of view, published a diverse range of friendly pieces, including a pro-hunting editorial by Frederick Forsyth on July 19, 1997; a beagling wedding in their style section; and they have at least one editor I know on their national desk who comes from unimpeachable sporting stock in the Northeast.

Here, in fact, is quite a good story they did after the ban in England which puts across the hunters' view with little mention of the antis' view and no quotes from antis.

http://http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/13/sports/othersports/13outdoors.html

And, as we have seen posted on this forum around Blessing Day, local general media also come to cover some hunts' opening meets without criticizing them.

I realize it's tempting to blast the media, and certainly there are biases in the media as there are in the rest of the world. The lack of countryside-understanding will likely become more pronounced in the media and society at large as urban living becomes more the norm than rural living. Which means we should really be trying actively to convert some reporters to foxhunters, as happened successfully with British journalists Jane Shilling, James Delingpole, and Molly Watson(who lived for a long time in New York), among others.

As hunters, it's our duty to educate and inform that society accurately--and, like it or not, that also means understanding how the media works and appreciating that we do have supporters as well as enemies there, and we also have opportunities to reach genuine reporters who don't know foxhunting from a hole in the ground but are interested in or tasked with finding out what the hullabaloo is all about. The good news is that, as traffic and congestion and disappearance of rural land become bigger issues for the public and mainstream media, there's an opportunity for hunting to tell its very good story of land preservation. As the "slow food" movement and other back-to-the-land-and-nature initiatives become more popular, there's a natural tie-in with hunting and its value.

That kind of strategic effort--wedding hunting's values with mainstream values and working to show the public how the two interests are entwined--is far more helpful than writing off the people who can and, more often than you might think, WILL help you tell your story. Remember: you might not know about their world any more than they know about yours. Do hunts need to be careful when dealing with the media and the public? Certainly they do.

Careful, but not hostile.

[Major Mark]

"Your Honor, he forces me to stay in an unheated wooden cell, which he refers to as a "stall", with only wood shavings to sleep on. No hot food, no TV, no access to newspapers or outside information. During the day, I'm left outside, no privacy, surrounded by electrified wire, a virtual prisoner. Metal bars, which he refers to as "shoes", are NAILED to my feet. Occasionally, he shows up wearing leather boots, with metal spurs, and carrying a riding crop, and straps kinky leather gear onto me, then climbs onto my back and forces me to carry him around. Even worse, he'll put me in a big metal box, take me to a "show", where I'm forced to appear in public wearing this demeaning outfit, and forces me to carry him around so others can see me and pass "judgement" on me. The nightmare never ends..."

[cssutton]

WHOOPS!!!!

BSD on COTH!!!!

CSSJR

[Tantivy1]

You sound very triumphant about having done that, and well you should. It should be second nature for anyone living in today's age of easily manufactured, easily distributed "news ."

Sorry, but that assessment is ENTIRELY wrong on that point.

EXTREMELY important minor little detail here.....you say I sound "triumphant" about having taken the time to check what I read.....if I was a horse you would hear me snorting right about now....I was "triumphant" if you want to call it that only, ONLY because I was gladdened to see that everything written in the press release checked out despite your assessment of said release having being purposely written to obtain an interview v. presenting anything that could remotely be of value to the hunting community.

I am getting the distinct feeling, and an ominous one it is, that some people would - to shamelessly borrow another's comment - have considerd Paul Revere an alarmist.

You see, there is this thing called HISTORY and I have a deep and everlasting respect for it, weather it happened 1,000, 100, or 10 years ago. That is part of the reason why I like foxhunting so very much, all the history associated with it.

That, and I like to deal in FACTS and this kinky thing called COMMON SENSE.

And my gut tells me there is trouble brewing.

Oh, and actually, that "triumphant tone" was written with a.....wee bit of scarcasm.

[Tantivy1]

"Your Honor, he forces me to stay in an unheated wooden cell, which he refers to as a "stall", with only wood shavings to sleep on. No hot food, no TV, no access to newspapers or outside information.....Even worse, he'll put me in a big metal box, take me to a "show", where I'm forced to appear in public wearing this demeaning outfit, and forces me to carry him around so others can see me and pass "judgement" on me. The nightmare never ends..."


Priceless, absolutely priceless.

[Beverley]

"I am getting the distinct feeling, and an ominous one it is, that some people would - to shamelessly borrow another's comment - have considered Paul Revere an alarmist."

Or not, given the historical context of the latter half of the 18th century and how information was disseminated at the time. Certainly his message was met with glee by the significant number of loyalists that lived in the neighborhood.

Alarmist = sky is falling = hearing 'a little bit' of information and leaping to conclusions that are not supported by facts. I see it every day in my line of work, beleaguered bureaucrat.

Alarmist = a sensational headline, as in the title of this thread. I would call it 'press release regarding appointment of AR activist by Obama.' Surely you haven't ignored many, many things that preceded Sunstein's appointment, in particular the hunting debates in Virginia.

Alarmist = the posts here and on FOL in November that proclaimed that hunting was done by the very fact of Obama's election. Having worked for every administration since Ford, I know about changes in administration, and just how quickly, or slowly, real 'change' comes about.

Now, if you want alarmING, just read posts throughout these COTH discussion fora. How many posts do you read, and surmise that the author is sometimes a PETA member, but much more often simply using AR terminology and espousing subtle AR beliefs promoted for decades now by PETA and HSUS. The fact that a lot of horse owners have accepted some of these AR beliefs (including a whole lot of anti-hunting sentiment)- and how many millions of non-horse owners, by now- and all of these people vote- tells you how Sunstein got appointed- not the election of one individual as President.

I do get tired of dinging my Congressman every time he uses the term 'animal rights.' But I do it, anyway. Probably just pushing a rock up a hill, but all I can do is all I can do.

Tantivy, upshot is, your gut is right, there is trouble brewing- but it has been for years, and we are probably too late in playing catch up. I just don't agree that the incoming administration is going to serve as a major catalyst. Years of prior actions get us where we are today, not what happened in the November elections.

[Beverley]

"The polar bear is protected at the present level by cabinet level decision that has the force of law."

Actually, no, I'm pretty sure they followed standard procedure under the Endangered Species Act. Which is law, passed by Congress and signed by....President Nixon.

It is also untrue that the recently published Endangered Species Act regulations 'gutted' the Act. But I still have a headache from giving that briefing yesterday, so apologies but I won't go into it now...

BTW Major Mark, my horses tell me they won't be filing suit, they are either on the trails or (not often enough) out hunting, precious little time in arenas.:cool:

[cssutton]

The problem with your link is that it is dated January 7, 2008.

After that date, there was a decision and it was to protect the polar bear, and if you will note your own link, it was a decision to be made by the SECRETARY of the Interior, which does indicate, does it not, that cabinet appointments have some importance?

I don't have the link, but my memory is not at fault. A decision was made at a later date and it does have an effect on many things.

Persons who are "alarmists" pointed out that a power plant in NC or VA could be deemed to be contributing to global warming to the point that it was affecting polar ice and therefore polar bears and therefore would be fined or shut down.

Silly?

Yes, but we are past the silly season. We have entered the silly millennium.


CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[cssutton]

That really was not hard.

Try this link. Although it does not give the exact wording of the decision, you can see what the decision was from the fall out.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=5514992

Be careful about telling me I don't know what I am talking about. It does have its risks.

Particularly in that I don't like it.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[cssutton]

And that link also alludes to the law of unintended consequences that so often kicks in as a result of stupid and unnecessary legislation/rule making.

This news story also gives a hint at how endangered species acts can be and are being used to prevent industry from exploring areas that should be explored.

In other words, it is a political agenda as much or more as it is to protect the polar bear.

If I had been Bush, I would have had a new Secretary of the Interior the next morning.

No, rather by dark that same night.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[cssutton]

And to anyone reading this who is about to complain that it has nothing to do with hunting and this is no place for politics, let me point out that politics has everything to do with hunting.

Also I would like to point out to those who might have missed it that the polar bear ruling is exactly the way in which hunting, fishing or anything else not supported by our new socialist government can be abolished or made so difficult that it would no longer be enjoyable and therefore not sustainable.

The reason this is not alarmist, in my opinion, is that we have reached for the first time in our history a confluence of forces, all of which are hostile to hunting and even to the idea of animal ownership.

A government that can only be described as a socialistic government, important officials in government who are hostile to hunting, guns, wealth, wealth by inheritance, manufacturing, large scale livestock farming, fossil fuels, etc.

A congress largely composed of the likes of Barny Frank, Chris Dodd, etc., who are really no better than hogs at the trough, in this case the trough being the treasury, the under the table money, whatever.

Virginia is a horrible example of embarrassing representation.

Add to that the huge sums HSUS has available to influence politics, some $1,300,000 each and every year for the past several years; add to that the increased cost of running for any government office, including those on the state and local level and then add to that the fact that we seem to have a major ethics problem in politics, again even at the state and local level.

If you like to hunt; if you farm cattle, horses or whatever, if you race or show horses, you had better be worried.

The same stupid ideas that brought about the proposal that dairy cattle be taxed at $185.00 per year because they make gas can be used to close your horse barn.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[Tantivy1]

" your gut is right, there is trouble brewing- but it has been for years, and we are probably too late in playing catch up. I just don't agree that the incoming administration is going to serve as a major catalyst. Years of prior actions get us where we are today, not what happened in the November elections.

Agreed, but the end result is not looking pretty, and I still have a gnawing fear that the current new admin, while having had the doors opened for themover the past few years, is going to use every advantage they now have to their own ends, and quickly, and this would not have been the case had a more hunting friendly admin been put in place.

[Beverley]

Claude,

Yes, I noticed I accidentally copied the wrong link from my files, and so deleted it. Nevertheless that old link did articulate the process being followed- it is standard procedure. Whether you like it or not, you do not seem to be familiar with the process. I am. I have to deal with Endangered Species Act compliance on a daily basis.

The Secretary of the Interior has the ultimate authority, pursuant to the regulations implementing the Endangered Species Act, to make the final call on listings, following a process through either the Fish and Wildlife Service or Marine Fisheries that takes YEARS. That is not an arbitrary executive branch authority. It is based directly on the legislation enacted by Congress. During a Republican administration. The polar bear listing came during a Republican administration. Politics involved? Absolutely. If you don't like the ESA- and it has been a controversial law for decades- I will tell you what I tell the engineers that have to wait for my say so to fire up their bulldozers- Congress spoke in 1973, it's not up to us to say whether we like it or not, we have to comply. If 'you' (meaning anyone) don't like the law, then you need to implore Congress to change it, the Executive branch (for which I work) cannot.

I do not agree that we have reached a 'confluence of forces' for the 'first time in our history.' It is an unfounded presumption based on the research I have done to date that the new administration is hostile to hunting. That certain individuals in the new administration are anti-hunting is as we've agreed worthy of monitoring, but again, the executive branch DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY to arbitrarily ban or restrict hunting. And, by the way, PETA and HSUS know that, which is why FOR YEARS they have been chipping away by working to introduce legislation at the state, county and city levels, and working to get state wildlife officials to restrict hunting. They know that the way to get rid of hunting is state by state.

We agree that those who hunt, and for that matter those who own livestock and pets, should be really worried. Maybe we disagree that next week's inauguration is any sort of catalyst. The biggest problem, insofar as hunting goes, is that there are so very few of us, including ALL types of hunting. We remain an asset mainly by virtue of revenues to the states from the purchase of hunting licenses- state wildlife agencies take a dim view of hunting restrictions when they affect revenues, which in turn fund management and habitat conservation. But the day it becomes more profitable to the state to fund 'wildlife watching' instead of hunting will be the day we are SOL.

[ArtilleryHill]

despite your assessment of said release having being purposely written to obtain an interview v. presenting anything that could remotely be of value to the hunting community.


Tantivy, I suggest you apply those vaunted close reading skills again to my original post. I never said there was nothing "remotely of value to the hunting community" in the press release. Nor did I say the press release did not contain facts. Nor have I said there's nothing to be worried about regarding attacks on hunting. What I did say is that a press release is not an article, and that readers should always be aware of the difference.

I've pretty much explained that to death.

I agree with Beverley's assessment of the general situation and that hunters need to be vigilant and intelligently proactive, as they always have needed to be. The most important issue by far is what strategies foxhunters, individually and collectively, intend to use to protect and promote foxhunting, regardless of what administration is in the White House.

As with almost any issue, if pressure groups covince a good majority of the general public that foxhunting is an immoral, dreadful thing and its banning is a crucial thing to put on the Congressional agenda, and if the public then pressures Congress effectively (through means made easier by those pressure groups), then that Congress, whether Democratic or Republican in majority, will be tempted to tackle the issue. If an issue like hunting is low-hanging fruit, and restricting or banning it an easy target for votes, then, yes, every person wanting votes is going to hop on that bandwagon, regardless of party. As we all know, this is the big reason you see politicians switch on issues as public opinion changes. It's far more likely to happen state by state, and incrementally (which we're already seeing, particularly in Pennsylvania and Virginia), rather than by some executive order making the state of Virginia off-limits to hunting (which would not do Obama any electoral favors at all, for a start).

So the key pretty clearly is not only to educate and be vigilant in the legislatures, by state and nationally, but also to continually try to get the general public (the voters) more familiar with and understanding of hunting. We are way, way behind the antis on this, and that's a growing danger as urban life becomes more prevalent. So, sure, worry about and watch Cass Sunstein. But also get out and invite your non-hunting neighbors to follow the hunt. See if you can invite a group of kids out to the kennel to puppy walk. Show your local historic preservation group the land your hunt is conserving. See if your local columnist would be interested in doing a piece about the long and distinguished history of your hunt. That stuff matters, because, chances are, it's those local folks who will be someday called upon to vote for or against you in some local or state proposition.

[Tantivy1]

Tantivy, I suggest you apply those vaunted close reading skills again to my original post. I never said there was nothing "remotely of value to the hunting community" in the press release. .

Yes, I did just that and offer up apologies as you feel they are warranted.

However, you pretty much dished the press release for lack of a better description, and I think it presented a few basic facts easily followed up on to discern the truth of the matter, and there was nothing untrue in the PR.

Your attitude regarding the PR overall not favorable.

And I bow low, sweeping low, to your far superior intellectual powers. You are an awesome writer!

Jealous in VA

[cssutton]

Beverley:

I admit that we are now getting pretty far from a hunting topic, but:

You are correct in describing how the process is supposed to work, but we now have a crowd elected and appointed that does not believe in "how things are supposed to work".

Witness the testimony this morning on Eric Holder.

Just one nugget to make my point: He issued the so called Holder rule which instructed justice prosecutors to tell corporations that they would get immunity from prosecution if the corporations refused to furnish legal counsel to their employees being investigated by the Justice Department.

That was in violation of the law which requires corporations to hire legal counsel for employees who are under investigation for activities engaged in while on the job.

Would the courts support Holder? Probably not, but who knows? And pity the poor employee who is forced to go it on his own all the way to the Supreme Court. It is not going to happen if the employee is low level and Holder and his kind bank on that. Roll over dead and he has what he needs to go after the others.

It is stuff like that that can lead to immediate results rather than the long drawn out process of following the rules.

Now I have not followed the polar bear story from its very beginning as I don't have a lot of interest in polar bears and even less confidence in Al Gore and his global warming theories, but from the time we first heard about polar bears starving on ice floes ( lie, by the way) until the time they were declared endangered was less than one year.

Maybe there is a lot I am missing, but to say the ground work was laid many years ago I don't think is a free pass because by that token one could find the groundwork for anything, including putting a penalty tax on dairy farmers for cows that pass gas and extending that to horse owners or anything else.

By the way, I am sure you know that the ordinary dairy operation has roughly 300 cows on the property. 300 x $185 = $55,000 and that would be every year.

Our government has gone over the edge, not because this has become law which it has not, but because we even have idiots in DC that would even think it, much less mention it in public.

We are in trouble in more ways than one.

And yes, I write my good senator on the average of once a week. Luckily my congress woman is as conservative as I am and I can tell what she is going to do about these things as soon as I see the proposal.

The down side is that both of them are the exception in DC.

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[Tantivy1]

Beverley:
Maybe there is a lot I am missing, but to say the ground work was laid many years ago I don't think is a free pass because by that token one could find the groundwork for anything, including putting a penalty tax on dairy farmers for cows that pass gas and extending that to horse owners or anything else.

By the way, I am sure you know that the ordinary dairy operation has roughly 300 cows on the property. 300 x $185 = $55,000 and that would be every year.


EXACTLY, taxing cow gas, but horses will not be far behind.

I mean, in plain English, they want to tax livestock for FARTING.

But if the same people give the cows legal rights.....I should certainly hope the cows and horses would use those very legal rights and sue for their rights to FART FREELY.

And with those same legal rights they will be suing us HUMANS for doing the same.

And where does this get us all?

I don't know if one should laugh or cry at it all.

I guess I need a bumper sticker that says HORSES: FART FREE OR DIE

[linquest]

I guess I need a bumper sticker that says HORSES: FART FREE OR DIE

...or a license plate :lol:

[JSwan]

And with those same legal rights they will be suing us HUMANS for doing the same.



My livestock and pets don't fart.

They poot.

Seriously - haven't y'all heard of the case over in Switzerland, I think. It's all about giving personhood to a chimpanzee.

Duh - it's Spain and it already happened. NZ, Spain and the UN. HSUS is proposing a ban on the use of apes in research in the US and worldwide. I hope no HSUS members get cancer or hepatitis or HIV......

[Beverley]

For anyone interested in a brief overview w/bibliography on the animal protection movement:

http://www.sonoma.edu/users/w/wallsd/animal-rights-movement.shtml

Gotta run, more to follow, maybe, if this is still going in a few days...

[IrishRydr]

A+ to Beverley! :D

[Dixon]

Anyone who would be happy to represent foxhounds file suit in order to allow them to continue the sport for which they have been carefully bred for for centuries?

To deny them their RIGHTS to continue their BIRTHRIGHT of foxhunting is cruel and unusual punishment, not to mention outright discrimination against them as a breed.

I smell a class action lawsuit on behalf of all foxhounds, American, English and PMDS, united may they stand! :)

The same attorney can represent the PIT BULLS to protect their birthright of tearing other dogs to pieces, and allow them to continue the sport for which THEY have been carefully bred.

[cssutton]

Are you saying that foxhunting is in the class with dog fighting?

CSSJR

If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[cssutton]

I withdraw the question.

I agree that some really hot shot attorney should take the case of the Pitt Bulls and get all ant-dog fighting laws declared unconstitutional in that it violates their right to exercise their right.

Same for cock fighting.

Same for bear baiting.

CSSJR

I like my sig better all the time.


If we do not wish to lose our freedom, we must learn to tolerate our
neighbor's right to freedom even though he might express that freedom
in a manner we consider to be eccentric.

[Tantivy1]

The same attorney can represent the PIT BULLS to protect their birthright of tearing other dogs to pieces, and allow them to continue the sport for which THEY have been carefully bred.

There is some official in Montanna (I think) that is trying to pass a bill to outlaw all Pittbulls. I know next to nothing about them and admit at a glance they seem vicious.

So I visited a website where people could reply yea or nay to the motion and voice their opinions on the matter.

SURPRISE, I was shocked to see sentiment running about 90% in favor of keeping pitbulls. Many of the people writing in had them as pets, some had had them for years, and no issues. Three people had been killed in the state by dogs in the past 43 years and none of the killing dogs had been pitbulls either.

There was next to zero support for the proposed legislation.

And in reply to your comment, I guess we will need attorney's to represent sharks that eat whales, foxes that eat mice and coyote who rip the abdomens of sheep open and eat the still living ewe before they carry off the foetus.

Oh, and they have bred themselves to do this with no help from us, imagine that!