Protecting Our Rights
31/12/07 14:44 Filed in: Jim Beers
Article
FRIENDS
A Midwestern reader has written the following to me while I was away on a fishing trip:
"I have some friends who are either non-hunters or anti-hunters. I haven't figured which yet. Last night at dinner they were complaining about hunters who hunt over feeders saying it's unfair, not really hunting, etc. I said it's not much different than raising a cow to be killed for food and pointed out they eat meat, at least he does, not her..I don't have a problem with hunting over feeders but didn't have much in the way of a defense..I have never hunted over a feeder, but I would if I had the opportunity..I am tempted to just let it go because I know I won't persuade them to view it any differently...Any thoughts on it?"
A Midwestern reader has written the following to me while I was away on a fishing trip:
"I have some friends who are either non-hunters or anti-hunters. I haven't figured which yet. Last night at dinner they were complaining about hunters who hunt over feeders saying it's unfair, not really hunting, etc. I said it's not much different than raising a cow to be killed for food and pointed out they eat meat, at least he does, not her..I don't have a problem with hunting over feeders but didn't have much in the way of a defense..I have never hunted over a feeder, but I would if I had the opportunity..I am tempted to just let it go because I know I won't persuade them to view it any differently...Any thoughts on it?"
First, a few
observations about baiting wildlife in general are in
order. Baiting animals with food has a long and
varied history. Trappers use food baits of various
kinds to target and fool various animals that they
wish to trap. Waterfowl hunters have known for
centuries that many kinds of grains and fruits and
other agricultural products readily draw and land
waterfowl of nearly all species. Large predators like
leopards and jaguars and tigers (though seldom
wolves) have been lured with everything from goats to
calves to specific locations to be killed. Rodents
and rabbits are baited with everything from cheese to
lettuce to be shot or trapped or poisoned. Domestic
animals that run wild and cause damage or danger like
cats and dogs are often baited to be killed or
trapped. Hawks are baited to be captured for
falconry. Nearly every species of wildlife is baited
to be examined or tagged for management purposes.
Other reasons for baiting are to kill or live trap
animals that are causing damage to agriculture or
livestock or pets or some desirable species of
wildlife. Baiting is often the surest and/or quickest
way to locate an offending animal. Baiting animals is
intrinsically neither good or bad; moral or immoral:
it is simply a tool that is regulated in the US for
specific reasons.
Here are a few of the reasons that baiting animals is regulated in the US. Some baits for coyotes or foxes may cause dogs to get caught (and also spoil the trappers effort to get a certain species, let us not forget) in areas near towns or cities. Waterfowl baiting has been tightly regulated because it is so effective that were it allowed, the harvest target number of waterfowl would be taken by just a few hunters in a few days as opposed several months where many hunters participate (and spend money and get energized to preserve waterfowl hunting). Many folks who neither hunt or are opposed to hunting either feel that baiting is unfair or simply see the subject as one more handle (like gun shows are to anti-2nd Amendment folks, or teen pregnancies are to those that want to have schools teach your kids everything from condom use to the aberration du jour) with which to eventually eliminate the thing they despise that other citizens value.
One example of this hidden agenda nonsense at work happened to me in the twilight of my federal career with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A Clinton appointee attended a meeting where my job was to convince the US State Department and US Trade Representative employees that they must oppose the efforts by the environmental and animal rights organizations to have the European Union ban all furs from the US (and Russia and Canada as well) because we were trapping wild animals. The Clinton appointees were secretly working with the radical animal rights groups while publicly touting their support for trapping and hunting and wildlife management and state fish and wildlife authority (all of which they really opposed). Anyway, my work was having results and the Clinton appointees were unsure what to do about it without tipping their hidden agenda. So, as the meeting broke up the Clinton appointee asked me in a loud voice what I thought about "bear baiting". This had nothing to do with the meeting and was supposed to (like mentioning dog fighting or cockfighting, etc.) make everyone go "ahh" and faint in a heap: his intent was to paint me as an "extremist" and undercut what I had said at the meeting without revealing his agenda. So I asked him why he thought we didn't allow waterfowl baiting? He responded "because it is unsportsmanlike". I said that was wrong, we don't allow baiting waterfowl because it is too efficient for killing birds: we want waterfowl hunting to be enjoyed by thousands of hunters for months, not a few hunters for a day or two. Then I said that if I were President, I would require baiting be allowed for any bear hunting on public lands. After he took in enough air for an English Channel swimmer I continued, "when bears come to bait they approach the hunter close by and are moving slow and the hunter is rested; the chance for the hunter to decide if he wants a bear that size or to see if there is a cub nearby is greatly enhanced; the chance for an accurate shot, humane kill, and finding the downed bear are also greatly enhanced. So no matter if you like the idea of a pile of jelly donuts or two-week old baloney; baiting is the most efficient and HUMANE way to kill bears and that is the point of a bear season that might otherwise be a bust because of snowstorms or heat waves or rain, etc. Bear stands can be registered and gut piles cleaned up and kill locations influenced to maximize the likelihood of a certain harvest resulting in the desired distribution results." I don't know what he thought of this reply because he left in a huff and never mentioned it again.
Think about this: the same non/anti hunters that would mention baiting bears as "unfair" or "unsportsmanlike" (as if they knew anything about the latter) are the same ones that will say the same thing about hunting bears (or cougars) with dogs. In the case of the latter, not only is the dog chase "unfair" and "unsportsmanlike" it is also "cruel" and "inhumane". Even the training of dogs garners it share of condemnation as "cruel" and "mean to the dog", etc. I leave their motives to their own conscience but their intent is to destroy our rights and that concerns me. Bottom line the baiting thing, like the dog thing, is just one more handle to eliminate bear and cougar hunting and then all hunting and then guns and then dog ownership and then even living in rural areas (you know the "Native Ecosystem" known previously only to Adam and Eve that government will "restore" when enough money and people are made available).
Now as to deer baiting. Deer baiting, like hunting deer with dogs has a long tradition in southern states where the woods are thick, the greenbrier thorns are long, and rural voters have yet to be overwhelmed by those that think our food is manufactured in China and that the sooner we get rid of our guns the safer we will all be. In short, the understanding and acceptance that killing deer by various means is a fine pastime that results in fine meals and that all the money and recreation generated benefits the state and local communities. This has contributed to the tolerance of both baiting and deer hunting with dogs. Northern and Western deer hunters have developed traditions that formerly had rejected dog hunting and baiting for deer. They generally have more open woodlands and larger fields and hunting experiences from Dads and Granddads that center around rifles and moving around. Good for them all!
As deer have become more numerous and deer-hunting practices from places like Germany (big stands in fields for long rifle shots) have arisen there has been an evolution of deer hunting methodologies. Baiting has become more acceptable in more states by more hunters: dog hunting is being more restricted as rural homes proliferate: and sitting in a warm stand often with food and heat and a TV while watching for a long rifle shot with high-tech scopes and rifles is viewed as "fun" and "enjoyable" and "the way to get a big buck" by more states and more hunters. Who says this is "bad" or "unsportsmanlike" or "unfair"? If the object is to "get" (i.e. Kill) a deer: who is to judge as long as it is safe for hunters and results in clean kills by hunters spending money and following sensible rules and paying for "conservation" and management?
Now there are many hunters that strongly oppose changes from what they grew up with and they therefore divide the hunting community. This is too bad, because they just help those that would eliminate all hunting. Conversely when certain states want to stretch out their season or regulate their deer herd for certain objectives with different methodologies or more traditional methods, that is their prerogative AND RESPONSIBILITY to their residents.
The "friends" you mention that want to tell you about your sportsmanship concepts or that demean you for just wanting to kill a deer and eat it remind me of other fellow citizen "friends" these days. There was a young lady (no wedding ring and very likely no kids) on the news recently talking about how "parents aren't teaching their kids about sex so the schools 'have' to do more educating of kids about sex". Then there is the "none of those 'so-called' Christians are models and they are all just stuck-up dupes that think they are better that the rest of us" crowd. Let's not forget the Boston ladies eating Brie or the Chicago yuppies drinking Chardonnay all opining about how important it is to restore wolves and grizzlies in rural America and how ranchers and small towns don't belong out "there".
All of these fellow citizens are periodically our "friends". We excuse them because we are related to them or work with them or live near them or just plain don't want to be offensive. This is a big mistake as anyone that has been following these things of late should be able to see.
When we tolerate all the emotional propaganda about cockfighting and dog fighting to be an excuse for national laws eliminating private property (the animal owner) and draconian penalties for animal uses that go back centuries in certain families and ethnic groups the results are exactly what I have just written about here. Because Michael Vick wasn't sorry "enough" "try him again" (in state court otherwise called "double jeopardy") because he "deserves" it. Today's paper had the fully anticipated follow-up report that the "shelters" should get "more" government money; shelter workers should get "enforcement authority"; animal officers should get authority to conduct warrant-less searches whenever they want; that federal animal "standards" should be mandated; breeding dogs should require government permission; that anyone attending a dogfight should be imprisoned; that every state legislator should support "more" punishment for any animal activity not permitted (as opposed the 200+ year-old concept that we "own" "our" animals and that local communities are the proper level of regulating or prohibiting such activities). The call for new federal laws and "more" state laws and "more" prison time is EXACTLY what hunters and trappers and fishermen and every animal owner and user can look forward to. The fact that so many "dog" organizations and animal users remain silent or admit they have a "point" here and there only gives a patina of legitimacy to a beast that will eventually consume them like Neville Chamberlain appeasing "Mr. Hitler".
So speak up when this business about "baiting" or "feeding" comes up. Speak about the need for dogs and training dogs and dogs as property and not as some government gift. Speak firmly to some and understandingly to others. Call teachers about propaganda being spread in schools. Tell your elected representatives that you may not want to attend a cock fight but that it should be up to local communities, not federal or state governments, to regulate our animal uses or our activities with our property. Don't support hunting groups or animal groups that don't speak out for your rights and your property. Don't vote for politicians that don't support you. Talk to neighbors and kids and relatives and fellow workers about all this and be proud.
Do not think for a moment that I went off on a tangent here or am off the subject. Deer feeding has controversies and many folks and groups and even government bureaucrats will use it to take away more of your rights despite your not understanding why. Only when animal baiting is regulated FOR SOCIETAL PURPOSES AND NOT THE WHIMS OF FOLKS OPPOSED TO THE GUARANTEED FREEDOMS IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC can we hope to stop the drive to eliminate hunting. When we accept the cock fighting and dog fighting and bull fighting (none of which have I ever attended) rationale that OUR WHIMS AND EMOTIONAL "FEELINGS" justifies the destruction of the concept of private property and animal management and animal use and the rights of fellow Americans: WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE INEVITABILITY OF OUR OWN EVENTUAL DESTRUCTION!
Those fighting analogies are really the "outposts" of American freedom regarding animal use and management and ownership. As they erode, so does and has the use of dogs and the hunting tradition as well as all other animal uses from husbandry to what we will be allowed to eat. Only when we accept change while holding firm that animals are for man's use and enjoyment and benefit can we hope to one day get a shot at a nice buck over bait. (I tried deer hunting over bait for a week in South Carolina last fall and while I saw no deer: I HAD A WONDERFUL HUNT AND A GREAT TIME.)
You asked for the time and I talked about how to build a clock but I hope this helped.
Jim Beers
31 December 2007
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7@verizon.net
- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.
Here are a few of the reasons that baiting animals is regulated in the US. Some baits for coyotes or foxes may cause dogs to get caught (and also spoil the trappers effort to get a certain species, let us not forget) in areas near towns or cities. Waterfowl baiting has been tightly regulated because it is so effective that were it allowed, the harvest target number of waterfowl would be taken by just a few hunters in a few days as opposed several months where many hunters participate (and spend money and get energized to preserve waterfowl hunting). Many folks who neither hunt or are opposed to hunting either feel that baiting is unfair or simply see the subject as one more handle (like gun shows are to anti-2nd Amendment folks, or teen pregnancies are to those that want to have schools teach your kids everything from condom use to the aberration du jour) with which to eventually eliminate the thing they despise that other citizens value.
One example of this hidden agenda nonsense at work happened to me in the twilight of my federal career with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. A Clinton appointee attended a meeting where my job was to convince the US State Department and US Trade Representative employees that they must oppose the efforts by the environmental and animal rights organizations to have the European Union ban all furs from the US (and Russia and Canada as well) because we were trapping wild animals. The Clinton appointees were secretly working with the radical animal rights groups while publicly touting their support for trapping and hunting and wildlife management and state fish and wildlife authority (all of which they really opposed). Anyway, my work was having results and the Clinton appointees were unsure what to do about it without tipping their hidden agenda. So, as the meeting broke up the Clinton appointee asked me in a loud voice what I thought about "bear baiting". This had nothing to do with the meeting and was supposed to (like mentioning dog fighting or cockfighting, etc.) make everyone go "ahh" and faint in a heap: his intent was to paint me as an "extremist" and undercut what I had said at the meeting without revealing his agenda. So I asked him why he thought we didn't allow waterfowl baiting? He responded "because it is unsportsmanlike". I said that was wrong, we don't allow baiting waterfowl because it is too efficient for killing birds: we want waterfowl hunting to be enjoyed by thousands of hunters for months, not a few hunters for a day or two. Then I said that if I were President, I would require baiting be allowed for any bear hunting on public lands. After he took in enough air for an English Channel swimmer I continued, "when bears come to bait they approach the hunter close by and are moving slow and the hunter is rested; the chance for the hunter to decide if he wants a bear that size or to see if there is a cub nearby is greatly enhanced; the chance for an accurate shot, humane kill, and finding the downed bear are also greatly enhanced. So no matter if you like the idea of a pile of jelly donuts or two-week old baloney; baiting is the most efficient and HUMANE way to kill bears and that is the point of a bear season that might otherwise be a bust because of snowstorms or heat waves or rain, etc. Bear stands can be registered and gut piles cleaned up and kill locations influenced to maximize the likelihood of a certain harvest resulting in the desired distribution results." I don't know what he thought of this reply because he left in a huff and never mentioned it again.
Think about this: the same non/anti hunters that would mention baiting bears as "unfair" or "unsportsmanlike" (as if they knew anything about the latter) are the same ones that will say the same thing about hunting bears (or cougars) with dogs. In the case of the latter, not only is the dog chase "unfair" and "unsportsmanlike" it is also "cruel" and "inhumane". Even the training of dogs garners it share of condemnation as "cruel" and "mean to the dog", etc. I leave their motives to their own conscience but their intent is to destroy our rights and that concerns me. Bottom line the baiting thing, like the dog thing, is just one more handle to eliminate bear and cougar hunting and then all hunting and then guns and then dog ownership and then even living in rural areas (you know the "Native Ecosystem" known previously only to Adam and Eve that government will "restore" when enough money and people are made available).
Now as to deer baiting. Deer baiting, like hunting deer with dogs has a long tradition in southern states where the woods are thick, the greenbrier thorns are long, and rural voters have yet to be overwhelmed by those that think our food is manufactured in China and that the sooner we get rid of our guns the safer we will all be. In short, the understanding and acceptance that killing deer by various means is a fine pastime that results in fine meals and that all the money and recreation generated benefits the state and local communities. This has contributed to the tolerance of both baiting and deer hunting with dogs. Northern and Western deer hunters have developed traditions that formerly had rejected dog hunting and baiting for deer. They generally have more open woodlands and larger fields and hunting experiences from Dads and Granddads that center around rifles and moving around. Good for them all!
As deer have become more numerous and deer-hunting practices from places like Germany (big stands in fields for long rifle shots) have arisen there has been an evolution of deer hunting methodologies. Baiting has become more acceptable in more states by more hunters: dog hunting is being more restricted as rural homes proliferate: and sitting in a warm stand often with food and heat and a TV while watching for a long rifle shot with high-tech scopes and rifles is viewed as "fun" and "enjoyable" and "the way to get a big buck" by more states and more hunters. Who says this is "bad" or "unsportsmanlike" or "unfair"? If the object is to "get" (i.e. Kill) a deer: who is to judge as long as it is safe for hunters and results in clean kills by hunters spending money and following sensible rules and paying for "conservation" and management?
Now there are many hunters that strongly oppose changes from what they grew up with and they therefore divide the hunting community. This is too bad, because they just help those that would eliminate all hunting. Conversely when certain states want to stretch out their season or regulate their deer herd for certain objectives with different methodologies or more traditional methods, that is their prerogative AND RESPONSIBILITY to their residents.
The "friends" you mention that want to tell you about your sportsmanship concepts or that demean you for just wanting to kill a deer and eat it remind me of other fellow citizen "friends" these days. There was a young lady (no wedding ring and very likely no kids) on the news recently talking about how "parents aren't teaching their kids about sex so the schools 'have' to do more educating of kids about sex". Then there is the "none of those 'so-called' Christians are models and they are all just stuck-up dupes that think they are better that the rest of us" crowd. Let's not forget the Boston ladies eating Brie or the Chicago yuppies drinking Chardonnay all opining about how important it is to restore wolves and grizzlies in rural America and how ranchers and small towns don't belong out "there".
All of these fellow citizens are periodically our "friends". We excuse them because we are related to them or work with them or live near them or just plain don't want to be offensive. This is a big mistake as anyone that has been following these things of late should be able to see.
When we tolerate all the emotional propaganda about cockfighting and dog fighting to be an excuse for national laws eliminating private property (the animal owner) and draconian penalties for animal uses that go back centuries in certain families and ethnic groups the results are exactly what I have just written about here. Because Michael Vick wasn't sorry "enough" "try him again" (in state court otherwise called "double jeopardy") because he "deserves" it. Today's paper had the fully anticipated follow-up report that the "shelters" should get "more" government money; shelter workers should get "enforcement authority"; animal officers should get authority to conduct warrant-less searches whenever they want; that federal animal "standards" should be mandated; breeding dogs should require government permission; that anyone attending a dogfight should be imprisoned; that every state legislator should support "more" punishment for any animal activity not permitted (as opposed the 200+ year-old concept that we "own" "our" animals and that local communities are the proper level of regulating or prohibiting such activities). The call for new federal laws and "more" state laws and "more" prison time is EXACTLY what hunters and trappers and fishermen and every animal owner and user can look forward to. The fact that so many "dog" organizations and animal users remain silent or admit they have a "point" here and there only gives a patina of legitimacy to a beast that will eventually consume them like Neville Chamberlain appeasing "Mr. Hitler".
So speak up when this business about "baiting" or "feeding" comes up. Speak about the need for dogs and training dogs and dogs as property and not as some government gift. Speak firmly to some and understandingly to others. Call teachers about propaganda being spread in schools. Tell your elected representatives that you may not want to attend a cock fight but that it should be up to local communities, not federal or state governments, to regulate our animal uses or our activities with our property. Don't support hunting groups or animal groups that don't speak out for your rights and your property. Don't vote for politicians that don't support you. Talk to neighbors and kids and relatives and fellow workers about all this and be proud.
Do not think for a moment that I went off on a tangent here or am off the subject. Deer feeding has controversies and many folks and groups and even government bureaucrats will use it to take away more of your rights despite your not understanding why. Only when animal baiting is regulated FOR SOCIETAL PURPOSES AND NOT THE WHIMS OF FOLKS OPPOSED TO THE GUARANTEED FREEDOMS IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC can we hope to stop the drive to eliminate hunting. When we accept the cock fighting and dog fighting and bull fighting (none of which have I ever attended) rationale that OUR WHIMS AND EMOTIONAL "FEELINGS" justifies the destruction of the concept of private property and animal management and animal use and the rights of fellow Americans: WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE INEVITABILITY OF OUR OWN EVENTUAL DESTRUCTION!
Those fighting analogies are really the "outposts" of American freedom regarding animal use and management and ownership. As they erode, so does and has the use of dogs and the hunting tradition as well as all other animal uses from husbandry to what we will be allowed to eat. Only when we accept change while holding firm that animals are for man's use and enjoyment and benefit can we hope to one day get a shot at a nice buck over bait. (I tried deer hunting over bait for a week in South Carolina last fall and while I saw no deer: I HAD A WONDERFUL HUNT AND A GREAT TIME.)
You asked for the time and I talked about how to build a clock but I hope this helped.
Jim Beers
31 December 2007
- If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
- This article and other recent articles by Jim Beers can be found at http://jimbeers.blogster.com (Jim Beers Common Sense)
- Jim Beers is available for consulting or to speak. Contact: jimbeers7@verizon.net
- Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist, Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow. He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress; twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60 Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Centreville, Virginia with his wife of many decades.
