# More Bad News coming from the Left



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

The following is an excerpt from an email message I received from the New York State Conservation Council. The ramafications of this are huge, and can be a serious threat to our hunting and fishing pastimes:

Two Massachusetts bills would guarantee anti-hunters seats on prominent wildlife management committees, giving them the power to ban hunting, fishing and trapping. 

Senate Bill 496, sponsored by Sen. Susan Pargo, D-Lincoln, compromises the integrity of the Massachusetts Fisheries and Wildlife Board by reserving four of the seven seats for anti-hunters and environmental groups. At the same time, only one seat would be guaranteed to represent sportsmen’s interests.

“Anti-hunters have made repeated attempts to have their kind appointed to the state Fisheries and Wildlife Board,” said Rob Sexton, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance vice president for government affairs. “They want to replace the highly-qualified board members who understand the value of hunting, fishing and trapping with representatives who preach non-lethal population controls.”

In 2000, when three board members were up for reelection, anti-hunters put pressure on former Massachusetts Gov. Paul Celluci and secured support from legislators to have a handful of their candidates appointed to the board. The effort failed, but the following year, the Humane Society of the United States led a charge to pass legislation requiring that anti-hunters fill two of the seats on the board. Fortunately, sportsmen responded at USSA alerts and defeated the bill.

Another alarming bill currently before the legislature, HB 1367, introduced by Rep. Frank Hynes, D-Plymouth, would place an anti-trapper on a commission responsible for investigating coyote populations and determining coyote management.

“Massachusetts wildlife will be in serious trouble if sportsmen don’t act now and stop the anti’s from slipping into these positions of authority,” said Sexton. “It is important to contact your legislators today and ask that these bills be defeated.”

Senate Bill 496 and House Bill 1367 are in the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture in their respective houses.


Do you believe anti-hunters should be permitted on wildlife management decision making boards? Would you support deer birth control as a means to control whitetail deer populations? Or do you believe this is a waste of time, taxpayers dollars and a very dangerous thing, introducing chemicals into wild herd animals?


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

give us a link doc.

I grow tired of your bashing the left here doc. Chances are you're labeling an environmentalist an anti-hunter?


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

Most, if not all anti hunting legislation IS introduced by the Democratic party. Which if I remember correctly if on the left, along with PETA, HSUS Friends for Animas etc. See related thread about "PETA and the Left"


----------



## Twang! (Apr 20, 2002)

ELKARCHER said:


> Most, if not all anti hunting legislation IS introduced by the Democratic party. Which if I remember correctly if on the left, along with PETA, HSUS Friends for Animas etc. See related thread about "PETA and the Left"


and most legislation that deals with conservation comes from the left as well, now why is that?

I know, I know, you repubs are quite certain that God will work the solution for you in the end so it's no matter - right?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Hammer said:


> and most legislation that deals with conservation comes from the left as well, now why is that?
> 
> I know, I know, you repubs are quite certain that God will work the solution for you in the end so it's no matter - right?


If we notice the course of where these anti-hunting bills come from, we find exactly where in the political garden the rock was sitting. We also find where these rock dwellers tend to land.... Embraced by the Democrat Party.

These are the folks trying to take your rights away. Do you believe hunting is important to our environment, or ecosystems, our very heritage?

If the answer is yes, you must unite with protecting your rights. If you answer is no, (to the above question) then you have aligned yourself with those who wish to TAKE OUR RIGHTS AWAY.

No, I am NOT INTERESTED in Presidential politics, or any thing else in this section. I am interested in getting real dialog and real information about what concerns HUNTERS. I quite frankly do not care whether you like the Pres or not. Doesn't matter. Hunting is what matters here, and that is where your topics will stay.

After all, I have been made the Legislative Moderator here, on account of the knowledge that I bring to this area. Challenge the debate of the issues....


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

Hammer said:


> and most legislation that deals with conservation comes from the left as well, now why is that?
> 
> I know, I know, you repubs are quite certain that God will work the solution for you in the end so it's no matter - right?


How do you rationalize a difference between hunters and coservation???
Hunters are the best conservationists!!

Most legislation for conservation is from the hunting fishing groups. Rocky mT elk, Foundation, Ducks unlimited Etc.

Enviromentalists, however are soley from the left. Do not confuse the two.

Do not ignore hunters as the most effective conservationists.
Pittman/Roberts?


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Yes. You can start with Theodore Roosevelt and go from there. Yellowstone National Park...... And now, the Left wishes to BAN all activities related to the outdoors in Yellowstone, such as snowmobiling, hunting, hiking, camping, fishing, and the list goes on and on.


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

*Sorry, hammer can't find this kind of article on the left side.*

Hail To The Chief!
President Bush Opening More Inroads For Hunters

The Bush Administration has announced plans to open new hunting and fishing programs on 10 national wildlife refuges and wetland management districts in Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, North Dakota, South Carolina and South Dakota as part of its annual Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Fishing Regulations.

With the changes in this proposed rule, there will be 325 public hunting programs and 283 public fishing programs on national wildlife refuges. 

“With this proposal, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will have launched over 60 new hunting and fishing programs on national wildlife refuges since 2001, enhancing access and opportunity for millions of Americans to enjoy their favorite outdoor traditions,” said Steve Williams, usfws director. 

The service is proposing to add the following refuges and wetland management districts (WMD) to the agency’s list of units open for hunting and/or fishing: Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in South Carolina; Mountain Longleaf NWR in Alabama; Red River NWR in Louisiana; Cypress Creek NWR in Illinois; Huron, Lake Andes, Madison, Sand Lake, Waubay WMDs in South Dakota; and Devils Lake WMD in North Dakota. 

In addition, the service is also proposing to expand recreational hunting and fishing opportunities on seven refuges in Nebraska, Texas, Tennessee, Indiana, Louisiana, Georgia and South Carolina. 

In 2003, there were 2.2 million hunting visits to national wildlife refuges and 6.6 million fishing visits. By law, hunting and fishing are two of the six priority wildlife-dependent recreational uses on national wildlife refuges.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Amen. Yes, we have seen at the Federal Level many areas become open for Hunting and Fishing, that were once off-limits due to the "no touchy, no feely" environmental wackos of the left. I am sure they will come back and lament these positive changes as "man screwing up the environment" or some other such nonsense.

However, although this is awesome, we must be vigilant within the borders of specific States, such as Massachusetts, as hunters utilize far more State lands than Federal lands, for the most part, especially here in the Northeast. On any conservation/ wildlife management board of "overseers" it does no one any benefit whatsoever, and those goes doubly for the wildlife, if environmentalists participate in these forums without the needed experience of being hunters and anglers themselves. 

We must always look out for those urban environmentalists. Keep them examining air quality in arenas, office buildings and malls, as this is the environment they know best. But, if we allow them to play around with Mother Nature, the Earth will lose, and our children and their children will bear the brunt second-hardest, only surpassed by what the wildlife will endure.


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

*The effects of "Hunters Conservation"*

1. HUNTING & FISHING LICENSE SALES total nearly $1 billion annually. This contribution supplies over half the income of the state conservation agencies and is used for wildlife management, education and safety programs. 

2. EXCISE TAXES on sporting equipment, such as fishing tackle, firearms and ammunition, provide another $400 million, funding thousands of conservation, habitat improvement and recreation projects across America. 

3. DUCK STAMPS purchased by migratory bird hunters add another $21 million in annual funding, totaling over $500 million to date. This money has been used to purchase some 5 million acres of wetlands habitat. 

4. CHARITABLE CONTRIBUTIONS by hunters and anglers to some 10,000 private organizations provide another $300 million in wildlife funding, in addition to the countless hours they spend doing vital conservation work. 

5. ALL TOLD, hunters and anglers annually provide over 75% of the average funding for state conservation agencies and some nine dollars for each single taxpayer dollar invested in wildlife. 

Can any other organization match this? Hunters are the TRUE conservationists!


----------



## ftshooter (Jul 26, 2003)

*Where did Hammer Go ????*

???? I think they got you on this one..HAMMER .. Please , prove the left is more pro hunting then the right ..you can't ... But, More important at this time help with the fight to stop these nuts ..


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

Actually, I'm more disturbed that he doesn't seem to understand that hunters are conservationists and environmentalists are not!


----------



## ELKARCHER (Apr 21, 2003)

*A Current Example Of Environmentalism*

Forest Service, bowing to court, embraces Scrooge
By Audrey Hudson
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
October 11, 2005 


A federal court ruling in favor of environmentalists is forcing the Forest Service to suspend more than 1,500 permits for activities ranging from fire prevention to Boy Scout meetings and also is threatening to delay cutting of the Capitol's Christmas tree until after the new year. 
A Forest Service regulation that allowed projects determined as having minimal environmental impact to be exempt from environmental studies and reviews was challenged by the Earth Island Institute. 
Judge James K. Singleton of the Eastern District Court of California ruled in July against a project to remove charred and damaged trees, which could kindle a future fire, in the Sequoia National Forest. 
The court said last month in a follow-up ruling that its decision in Earth Island Institute v. Ruthenbeck applies nationwide, rather than just to the local dispute. 
As a result, the Forest Service immediately suspended all "categorical exclusions," which approved the Sequoia project and had been used since 2002 to allow permits of numerous other activities, including trail upkeep at ski resorts and issuing outdoor guide permits. 
"We are actively pursuing options in light of this nationwide ruling, including working with the Department of Justice to seek a stay of the ruling pending appeal," Forest Service chief Dale Bosworth told employees in a Sept. 23 memo. 
Court documents and Forest Service memos show that the permits immediately suspended include hundreds of projects nationwide for fire prevention on tens of thousands of acres; nearly 100 guide permits for hunting, fishing, horseback riding and fishing; 150 wildlife habitat projects; 165 permits to maintain camp grounds and trails; 15 ski area projects that may shut down the upcoming ski season in some areas; and 40 permits for family reunions and Boy Scout and Girl Scout activities. 
Under the new requirement of public notices, comment periods and appeals, the tree selected from a New Mexico forest for this year's Christmas display on the Capitol lawn would arrive around Valentine's Day. 
That prospect is frustrating New Mexico's federal lawmakers who see Washington bureaucrats as depriving their state of a major annual civic honor. 
"We need these reindeer games to stop so New Mexico can stay on schedule with its national holiday tree plans," said Sen. Pete V. Domenici, New Mexico Republican. 
"This ruling and the Forest Service response to it would be like the Grinch who stole Christmas for the many New Mexicans who have worked well over a year to prepare for the tree's state tour and eventual trip to the nation's capital, and for school kids and groups who are already creating ornaments to festoon the tree," he said. 
Mr. Domenici noted the seriousness of the court ruling's implication on the far-reaching impacts and "consequences of some environmental lawsuits," but he and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, are asking Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns to intervene so the holiday conifer can be delivered on schedule. 
"We are troubled that the interpretation of a decision made by a Federal District Court in California may adversely affect these plans. We urge you to redouble your efforts to address concerns regarding the procurement of this year's Capitol Holiday Tree in order to resolve this situation in time for the tree's tour around New Mexico," the senators said last week in a letter to the federal officials. 
The Earth Island Institute filed suit against the Forest Service in 2003 and argued that the agency was breaking the law by exempting some projects from public comment and appeals. 
On July 2, the court ruled in favor of the California environmental group and held as "invalid" Forest Service regulations that exclude some projects from public notice, comment or appeal. 
The September court decision ordered that all Forest Service projects and decisions since July 7 be suspended, and the federal agency must add a 105-day notice, comment and appeal period to the decision-making process.


----------



## Tom C (May 25, 2002)

Conservation MC......yea right.....guess that all depends on your definition of conservation. Irregardless of your socialist political views, when are you going to open your eyes and realize the damage that the left has and continues to inflict upon the future of hunting and fishing. Why don't you (provide a link...please) of an anti hunting/fishing group that isnt directly or indirectly supported by the left. You know what.........somewhere out there......there probably is a group but 99.9% of all Anti-Hunting groups are supported by and is populated by a bunch of left wingers!

Sorry MC............you lose on this one..........the left wing supported anti's are the biggest threat to the future of hunting and fishing and this is why I would be ashamed to call myself an outdoorsmen/women if I supported the left at the ballot box. 

Sure am thankful also of the left wing envionmentalists wackos movement to conserve anwar. Those false advertising campaigns really got the job done for your partners in conservation.........and I appreciate it even that much more every time I gas up the truck! Don't you just love when you hear how the left is all about consevation.......lol......lol. The left wing conservationists also did/do a great job in California protecting all that brush from being cut around populated areas........thats another laugher........probably not a laugher if your house got burned down from a fire though.

Those libs sure have the conservation thing down pat. 

tom


----------



## GONZO (Sep 9, 2003)

I wonder why the left is always saying their way of thinking is best for us all , but everytime they open their mouths , they are wanting to take away something else that i enjoy , the left is good for one thing ,,,,,, flute tuning !


----------



## Tim4Trout (Jul 10, 2003)

The anti's on F&W board bill

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00496.htm

The legislator who introduced the bill

http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/scf0.htm

The anti trapper bill

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/house/ht01/ht01367.htm

The legislator who introduced the bill

http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/fmh1.htm

From the anti trapper bill text ...

_
That a special commission, to consist of 7 members, is hereby established for the purpose of making an investigation and study relative to devising a comprehensive plan to address the growing overpopulation of coyotes in the commonwealth, and to better balance the safety and well-being of residents with the needs of coyotes for adequate natural habitat. Said commission shall consist of three members of the house of representatives, one of whom shall be the house chair of the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture, two members of the Senate, one of whom shall be the Senate chair of the Joint Committee on Natural Resources and Agriculture, the commissioner of the Department of Fish & Game, and one representative of anti-trapping interests.
_

My comments on the anti trapper bill.

*
Having an anti trapper serving on a commission whose agenda is to develop ways of dealing with wildlife overpopulation is like having a dope dealer serving in an authority position in conjunction with a D.A.R.E program
*

********


Here is another Massachusetts bill which the hsus supports that needs stopping.


Mass. senate bill 540 would establish a legislative commission for the purpose of evaluating and recommending non-lethal and lethal methods which shall be available to wildlife managers and the public, to successfully manage and co-exist with the following animals: beaver, muskrat, coyote and moose and would include among its members ...

A member of the Massachusetts society for the protection against cruelty to animals;

http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00540.htm

In early 1996 the mspca distributed a deceptive direct mailing in an attempt to gain support for a hsus pushed 1996 referendum that banned Conibear traps, banned hounding of bears and bobcats, etc., and created a potential opening for anti hunters to gain access to the Mass. F & W board.

Here is a segment from a 1996 press release on that deceptive mailing.

_
Information distributed through a direct mailing in March and April, by the Massachusetts Society For The Prevention of Cruelty To Animals/ American Humane Education Society, contained erroneous information regarding the use of traps in Massachusetts. The mailing, Decker alleges, was an effort to increase membership for the organization. The outside of the mailing envelope had a sketch depicting a domestic house cat with it's forepaw captured in a long spring foothold trap. The sketch was accompanied by text that read "Its' legal. It shouldn't be". The real catch is that the trapping event as depicted is unlawful and has been for the past 21 years. 

Typical of such mailings, the theme was framed to elicit a sense of outrage, invoke urgency to the issue, and encouraging the recipient to "act now". The Division contacted the MSPCA asking that they inform the recipients of the mailing that the use of the trap as depicted is currently unlawful and has been since 1975. 
_

http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/press/prs9606.htm#PR6-28-96c


Do you think that the committee that would be established by passsage of senate bill 540 should have as one of its members someone from an organization that has been proven to have deceived people in the past in order to gain support for an agenda it favors ?


----------



## Barrage (Jan 4, 2005)

Great, I see the hatebox has been moved to a different domain.


----------



## Stroud Creek (Jan 13, 2004)

Hummer I have really tryed to see things from your point of view but I just can't get my head that far up my @ss.


----------



## doctariAFC (Aug 25, 2005)

Barrage said:


> Great, I see the hatebox has been moved to a different domain.


No hate here. Unless you're one of those that HATE HUNTING....

Be warned, all posters... We will keep topics on topic. This is a place for Hunting Rights and Outdoors Legislation. This is not place to promote, support or attack your own political beliefs and positions, aside from those beliefs being DIRECTLY related to Hunting Rights and Outdoors Legislation.

Since these issues (Hunting Rights and Outdoors Legislation) are EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO OUR SPORTS THEMSELVES, other "debates" off these subjects will be considered detrimental distractions from becoming informed on what issues impact the outdoors, threads going off topic will be sent to their own "Happy Hunting Ground," posts on a thread that simply bash political camps and parties without the appropriate context (on topic!) will receive red warnings from ol' DoctariAFC, and habitual and/ or intentional violations of these very clear goals and guidelines shall be considered an attempt to keep hunters ignorant to the important issues, and you will be forthwith removed from posting here.

Play Nice, please


----------



## dreygo (May 30, 2003)

I think we could all learn a lesson from a fantastic post like Tim4Trout submitted. Most posters don’t bother trying to discern opinion from knowledge, and this gentleman has given a great example of a small amount of opinion based on a larger body of comprehensive facts…cudos man!


----------

