This is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) video about the California hounding bill, California SB 1221.
Thoughts, anyone? Is this a fair treatment of the issue?
Showing posts with label Anti-hunting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anti-hunting. Show all posts
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Saturday, July 14, 2012
Does HSUS need hunting to continue?
Do HSUS and other anti-hunting groups need hunting? From an excellent 5-part series on "The Vanishing Hunter," which appeared in 2008 in Delta Waterfowl's magazine:
"Perhaps Jim Posewitz of Orion—The Hunter's Institute summed it up best when he wrote in Pheasants Forever magazine, 'The animal rights and anti-hunting campaigns occupy more of our time and attention than they deserve. While they raise a lot of money and live well, they have not done much serious damage. They are a parasite and we are their host. They are an irritation, but are not likely to kill us—they and their business model require us.'"Have anti-hunting organizations done any lasting damage or are they, as Jim Posewitz suggests, merely an irritation?
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
THUG shotguns and TV show - you've got to be kidding!
This from the Outdoor Wire.
It makes you wonder, what are these people thinking??? Naming a series of shotguns THUG and a TV show! If some anti group smeard us with this term the NRA would be all over them. But the marketers at Mossberg and Mossy Oak do it and we all roll over. As Pogo famously said, "We have met the enemy and it is us."
It makes you wonder, what are these people thinking??? Naming a series of shotguns THUG and a TV show! If some anti group smeard us with this term the NRA would be all over them. But the marketers at Mossberg and Mossy Oak do it and we all roll over. As Pogo famously said, "We have met the enemy and it is us."
Mossberg delivers four new high-performance Turkey THUG shotgun models, each engraved with "Turkey THUG Series" on the receiver. Mossberg Turkey THUG shotguns will be the exclusive shotguns used in Mossy Oak's Turkey THUG television program in 2011-2012, which airs on the Pursuit Channel. | For More...
Monday, October 25, 2010
Major Sportsmen’s Victory in Maine
Court of Appeals Upholds Major Sportsmen’s Victory in Maine
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Leading Trapping Groups
Win Again in Precedent Setting Case
(Columbus) – Trappers in Maine and sportsmen nationwide scored a huge victory after a Federal Court of Appeals rejected an effort from anti-hunting groups seeking to use the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to stop trapping in the state. This decision reaffirms a lower court decision that set a precedent against manipulation of the ESA to stop hunting, fishing, and trapping.
“We are ecstatic and relieved that this lawsuit is no longer a threat to our lifestyle as we prepare to open the 2010 trapping season,” said Skip Trask of the Maine Trappers Association. “The Maine Trappers Association couldn’t be happier with this decision. It is much more than just a victory for Maine. This decision will help protect all trapping and other sports from coast to coast. We appreciate the support and guidance of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation (USSAF) legal team and all of our partners.”
The anti-hunting groups had originally filed the suit in 2008 against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They had argued that Maine’s trapping regulations provided insufficient protection for the Canada lynx, a species listed as threatened under the ESA, and thus required the season to be stopped.
The USSAF, along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, intervened in the case on behalf of the state. The groups argued that those seeking to shut down an entire season of trapping (or hunting or fishing) must not only prove the incidental take of an ESA-protected species, but also “irreparable harm” to the population.
In the initial lower court decision, Judge Woodcock concluded that the take of individual members of a reasonably numerous protected species does not necessarily meet the requirement of irreparable harm. He also indicated that the take of lynx occurring in Maine foothold traps, typically catch-and-release incidents, did not constitute irreparable harm in this case. Consequently, Judge Woodcock declined the injunction and the trapping season was able to take place.
Unhappy with the result, the anti-hunting groups filed an appeal in December, 2009 seeking to reverse Judge Woodcock’s decision. The USSAF and the others immediately filed legal briefs in order to defend the major legal victory.
In the unanimous opinion rejecting the appeal, Chief Judge Lynch affirmed Judge Woodcock’s findings that the plaintiffs’ failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for an injunction. Judge Lynch then went on to criticize the plaintiffs’ last-minute request for lesser sanctions restricting trapping. In the lower court, Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) expressly refused that option and instead pursued a full ban on trapping.
“It may well have done so for tactical reasons, preferring to stress the inadequacy of other remedies in order to strengthen its case for injunctive relief against foothold traps,” wrote Lynch. “Parties are held to their choices and AWI's bait and switch tactics in the courts are to be deplored, not rewarded.”
The latest decision should assist in the defense of any further lawsuits by anti-trappers. It leaves the plaintiffs in this case with few options other than a petition to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court agrees to consider only a few dozen cases a year out of the many hundreds of cases filed with it each year.
“It was clear all along that anti-hunters were looking to set a precedent that could be used in state after state to shut down not only trapping, but hunting and fishing as well,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSAF president and CEO. “With this strong decision, antis are going to have a far more difficult time doing this.”
About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting – that generate the money to pay for them. The Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible.
About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Leading Trapping Groups
Win Again in Precedent Setting Case
(Columbus) – Trappers in Maine and sportsmen nationwide scored a huge victory after a Federal Court of Appeals rejected an effort from anti-hunting groups seeking to use the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to stop trapping in the state. This decision reaffirms a lower court decision that set a precedent against manipulation of the ESA to stop hunting, fishing, and trapping.
“We are ecstatic and relieved that this lawsuit is no longer a threat to our lifestyle as we prepare to open the 2010 trapping season,” said Skip Trask of the Maine Trappers Association. “The Maine Trappers Association couldn’t be happier with this decision. It is much more than just a victory for Maine. This decision will help protect all trapping and other sports from coast to coast. We appreciate the support and guidance of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation (USSAF) legal team and all of our partners.”
The anti-hunting groups had originally filed the suit in 2008 against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. They had argued that Maine’s trapping regulations provided insufficient protection for the Canada lynx, a species listed as threatened under the ESA, and thus required the season to be stopped.
The USSAF, along with the Maine Trappers’ Association, Fur Takers of America, National Trappers’ Association, and several individual sportsmen, intervened in the case on behalf of the state. The groups argued that those seeking to shut down an entire season of trapping (or hunting or fishing) must not only prove the incidental take of an ESA-protected species, but also “irreparable harm” to the population.
In the initial lower court decision, Judge Woodcock concluded that the take of individual members of a reasonably numerous protected species does not necessarily meet the requirement of irreparable harm. He also indicated that the take of lynx occurring in Maine foothold traps, typically catch-and-release incidents, did not constitute irreparable harm in this case. Consequently, Judge Woodcock declined the injunction and the trapping season was able to take place.
Unhappy with the result, the anti-hunting groups filed an appeal in December, 2009 seeking to reverse Judge Woodcock’s decision. The USSAF and the others immediately filed legal briefs in order to defend the major legal victory.
In the unanimous opinion rejecting the appeal, Chief Judge Lynch affirmed Judge Woodcock’s findings that the plaintiffs’ failed to demonstrate the irreparable harm necessary for an injunction. Judge Lynch then went on to criticize the plaintiffs’ last-minute request for lesser sanctions restricting trapping. In the lower court, Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) expressly refused that option and instead pursued a full ban on trapping.
“It may well have done so for tactical reasons, preferring to stress the inadequacy of other remedies in order to strengthen its case for injunctive relief against foothold traps,” wrote Lynch. “Parties are held to their choices and AWI's bait and switch tactics in the courts are to be deplored, not rewarded.”
The latest decision should assist in the defense of any further lawsuits by anti-trappers. It leaves the plaintiffs in this case with few options other than a petition to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court agrees to consider only a few dozen cases a year out of the many hundreds of cases filed with it each year.
“It was clear all along that anti-hunters were looking to set a precedent that could be used in state after state to shut down not only trapping, but hunting and fishing as well,” said Bud Pidgeon, USSAF president and CEO. “With this strong decision, antis are going to have a far more difficult time doing this.”
About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing, trapping, and shooting – that generate the money to pay for them. The Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible.
About the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. For more information about the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance and its work, call (614) 888-4868 or visit its website, www.ussportsmen.org.
Saturday, October 9, 2010
A Matter of Life and Death, Hunting in Contemporaty Vermont
This post is from my friend Tovar Carulli's blog The Mindful Carnivore. I highly recommend reading the book he comments on, A Matter of Live and Death by Marc Boglioli. As a former Vermont Game Warden the commentary on rural culture and hunting resonates loud and clear with me.
Eighteen years ago, I had no doubt: hunting was wrong.
Not that I made big distinctions among kinds of violence. I abhorred the idea of industrial meat operations, and thought little about the alternatives. Why split hairs? A murdered animal was a murdered animal.
Hunting, however, did seem especially gratuitous. We no longer needed to do it. Thanks to agriculture we now had ample plant matter to survive on.
At the same time, though, I mourned the extermination of indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures around the world.
If someone had pointed out that contradiction—the fact that I wished for the survival of cultural traditions that involved killing animals—I probably would have argued that such cultures, like ours, could make moral progress away from hunting and meat-eating.
Yikes. Might I have made a good missionary?
I also would have argued that indigenous cultures respected animals in ways that Euro-American culture did not. My problem wasn’t really with human predation in all times and places. My problem was with hunting here and now: mainly white folks with guns.
Now, most of two decades later, a new book has me reflecting on the views I held back then.
In A Matter of Life and Death: Hunting in Contemporary Vermont, anthropologist Marc Boglioli argues that mainstream American culture is increasingly dominated by a particular way of seeing (and talking about) nature and animals. “Killing beautiful wild animals,” he writes in the Introduction, “simply does not fit into the mainstream urban worldview.”
Read More:
Redneck culture, city culture: The clash over hunting
Eighteen years ago, I had no doubt: hunting was wrong.Not that I made big distinctions among kinds of violence. I abhorred the idea of industrial meat operations, and thought little about the alternatives. Why split hairs? A murdered animal was a murdered animal.
Hunting, however, did seem especially gratuitous. We no longer needed to do it. Thanks to agriculture we now had ample plant matter to survive on.
At the same time, though, I mourned the extermination of indigenous hunter-gatherer cultures around the world.
If someone had pointed out that contradiction—the fact that I wished for the survival of cultural traditions that involved killing animals—I probably would have argued that such cultures, like ours, could make moral progress away from hunting and meat-eating.
Yikes. Might I have made a good missionary?
I also would have argued that indigenous cultures respected animals in ways that Euro-American culture did not. My problem wasn’t really with human predation in all times and places. My problem was with hunting here and now: mainly white folks with guns.
Now, most of two decades later, a new book has me reflecting on the views I held back then.
In A Matter of Life and Death: Hunting in Contemporary Vermont, anthropologist Marc Boglioli argues that mainstream American culture is increasingly dominated by a particular way of seeing (and talking about) nature and animals. “Killing beautiful wild animals,” he writes in the Introduction, “simply does not fit into the mainstream urban worldview.”
Read More:
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Life according to PETA
A bit over the top, but rings true video exposing PETA's philosophy.
Enjoy...
Life According to PETA
Enjoy...
Life According to PETA
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Democratic Hunting under Attack in VT
From the Calidonian Record:
Vermont Lawmakers Save 'Pete The Moose'
Robin Smith
Staff Writer
Local lawmakers believe they have saved Peter the Moose, his "girlfriend" and all the other wild deer and moose in Doug Nelson's elk hunting preserve in Irasburg.
Sen. Bobby Starr, D-Essex-Orleans, announced Wednesday the House and Senate conference committees have approved the budget bill that addresses the status of the preserve and the wild animals in the 700-acre enclosure, including Pete.
Even if the budget itself is vetoed by Gov. James Douglas over conflicts with the Democratic legislative leaders on capital gains taxes, the language about the preserve isn't part of the conflict, Starr said, and it will stay intact.
"We are good to go," Starr said.
Preserve Has New Status
Pete and other moose and deer that are in the elk preserve were illegal because the preserve fell afoul of new Fish and Wildlife laws governing hunting facilities.
The law required Nelson to get a permit for elk hunting on the nine-year-old preserve, which was created before such laws existed.
However, the permit would not allow native animals such as moose and deer inside the enclosure for fear they would catch tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease from the elk and spread the diseases to the native wild deer and moose population.
Now, under the language in the budget bill, the elk preserve will no longer be under Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction but under the Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, which already supervises captive deer herds. The hunting preserve becomes a game farm.
Read more
Here is my comment on the story:
Wild animals are held in the public trust by our state government. 250 years of case law and 500 years of common law have been subverted by this change in the law. This legislation has given our deer and moose to Mr Nelson to shoot, market or sell for his own personal gain. The state gets nothing. Although the cynic in me suspects the politicians will get some good campaign donations.
This is the greatest attack on democratic hunting since we fought the British.
Here is the full section that was put in the Appropriations bill in the last days of the session. Sources tell me that Fish and Wildlife was not consulted about the content or language.
Sec. E.702.1 TRANSFER OF REGULATORY OVERSIGHT AND
SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR FACILITY AND HERD
MANAGEMENT
(a) The general assembly finds and declares that:
(1) Vermont has long recognized that the protection and management of
the state’s native cervidae population is in the interest of the public welfare.
(2) An abundant, healthy deer herd is a primary goal of wildlife
management, and hunting is a time-honored Vermont tradition.
(3) Vermont’s captive cervidae herds are regulated as game farms under
authority of the secretary of agriculture, food and markets under chapter 102 of
Title 6 and the agency of agriculture, food and markets’ rules governing
captive cervidae.
(4) Captive cervidae herds provide economic benefit to Vermont in the
same manner as farms producing cattle, sheep, pigs, and other amenable
livestock.
(5) Tuberculosis is a transmissible disease that can infect species of both
the cervidae and bovidae families and is zoonotic. The family bovidae
includes cattle. The family cervidae include white-tailed deer, moose, and elk.
(6) Chronic wasting disease is a transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy that has been identified in both free-ranging and captive
cervidae populations in other parts of the United States, including New York
state.
(7) Tuberculosis can be transmitted in cervidae and bovidae by nose-tonose
contact and through the sharing of watering and feeding troughs. It is not
known exactly how chronic wasting disease is transmitted, but the most likely
route of transmission is nose-to-nose contact. The agency of agriculture, food
and markets’ rules governing captive cervidae contain provisions both for
managing herds that may be susceptible to chronic wasting disease and for
testing cervidae to monitor for the control of zoonotic diseases contagious to
livestock, including tuberculosis.
(8) The captive cervidae facility located in Irasburg manages a specialpurpose
herd established in 1994 within a 700-acre enclosure. At the time of
the enclosure, the 700 acres contained a small population of native cervidae
that currently falls outside the jurisdiction of the agency of agriculture, food
and markets.
(9) In order to align state regulatory oversight of the facility and balance
the state’s responsibility to protect and manage its native cervidae populations
with the economic benefit contributed by the 700-acre captive cervidae facility,
it is necessary to transfer to the agency of agriculture, food and markets full
jurisdiction and authority for regulatory oversight of the Irasburg facility and
full authority for herd management of the facility and all cervidae currently
contained within the 700-acre enclosure.
(b) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, for the purposes of this
section, the term “cervidae” shall include all white-tailed deer and moose
currently entrapped in the Irasburg captive cervidae facility that contains a
special-purpose herd, as “special-purpose herd” is defined in the agency of
agriculture, food and markets’ rules governing captive cervidae.
(c) The Irasburg captive cervidae facility that contains a special-purpose
herd shall:
(1) Erect a secondary-perimeter fence inside the existing, primaryperimeter
fence sufficient to reduce the possibility of contact between native
cervidae and any cervidae within the facility. The secondary fencing shall be
approved by the secretary of agriculture, food and markets and shall be erected
no later October 1, 2010.
(2) Submit a written herd management plan for all cervidae, including
entrapped native cervidae, within the facility to the secretary of agriculture,
food and markets for approval. The plan shall:
(A) contain a specific disease surveillance component, acceptable to
the secretary of agriculture, food and markets, that presents at least 30 mature
native cervidae to the secretary of agriculture, food and markets for
tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease testing per year. For purposes of this
subdivision, “mature” means an animal older than 16 months of age;
(B) provide for the culling of antlerless native cervidae at a rate that
prevents the herd size from overpopulating the enclosed area. The culling
program shall include a provision to allow members of the Vermont National
Guard who did not participate in the Vermont regular deer or moose hunting
seasons and who were awarded or are eligible to receive a campaign ribbon for
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom to assist with the
cull; and
(C) be filed with the secretary of agriculture, food and markets no
later than August 1, 2010.
(3) Comply with all disease testing protocols established and required
by the secretary of agriculture, food and markets.
(4) Demonstrate by no later than September 1, 2010, substantial
compliance with the agency of agriculture, food and markets’ rules governing
captive cervidae.
(5) Remain in good regulatory standing with the secretary of agriculture,
food and markets.
(d) The secretary of agriculture, food and markets may grant a variance
from the agency of agriculture, food and markets’ rules for the design and
construction of the secondary-perimeter fence required under subdivision
(c)(1) of this section if the fence design proposed by the owner of the Irasburg
facility serves the underlying purpose of reducing the possibility of contact
between free-ranging native cervidae and any cervidae enclosed within the
facility. The secretary of agriculture, food and markets may grant variances to
other provisions of the agency of agriculture, food and markets’ rules
governing captive cervidae provided that the health and welfare of free-ranging
native cervidae are not compromised or put at risk.
(e) In order to ensure that the appropriate number of native cervidae are
provided to the secretary of agriculture, food and markets for disease
surveillance as required under subdivision (c)(2)(A) of this section and that the
facility is able to meet the cull rate required under subdivision (c)(2)(B) of this
section, the facility may harvest cervidae during a special season, if necessary.
Any special harvest shall be approved in advance by the secretary of
agriculture, food and markets after consultation with the commissioner of fish
and wildlife. Notice of approval for a special season shall be posted at least 10
days in advance of the season in the office of the town clerk of Irasburg.
(f) Any native cervidae discovered between the primary and secondary
fences at the Irasburg captive cervidae facility or any cervidae carcass
discovered within the Irasburg facility shall be immediately presented to the
secretary of agriculture, food and markets for disease surveillance.
(g) The secretary of agriculture, food and markets may enforce a failure to
comply with the requirements of this section under chapter 1 or 102 of Title 6.
(h) It shall be a violation of chapter 103 or 113 of Title 10 if a person
knowingly or intentionally entraps or allows a person to knowingly or
intentionally entrap a native cervidae within the Irasburg captive cervidae
facility.
Friday, February 19, 2010
The next step for Quality Deer Management?
This op-ed piece just appeared in today's New York Times. Perhaps the uber-breeding of big-racked, pain-free deer is just what the doctor ordered to keep anti-hunters at bay in the never-ending fight to protect hunting's future. What do you all think??
Op-Ed Contributor
Not Grass-Fed, but at Least Pain-Free St. Louis
IN the 35 years since Peter Singer’s book “Animal Liberation” was published, jump-starting the animal rights movement in the United States, the number of animals used in cosmetics testing and scientific research has dropped significantly, and the number of dogs and cats killed in shelters has fallen by more than half. Nevertheless, because the amount of red meat that Americans eat per capita has held steady at more than 100 pounds a year as the population has increased, more animals than ever suffer from injuries and stress on factory farms.
Veal calves and gestating sows are so confined as to suffer painful bone and joint problems. The unnatural high-grain diets provided in feedlots cause severe gastric distress in many animals. And faulty or improperly used stun guns cause the painful deaths of thousands of cows and pigs a year.
We are most likely stuck with factory farms, given that they produce most of the beef and pork Americans consume. But it is still possible to reduce the animals’ discomfort — through neuroscience. Recent advances suggest it may soon be possible to genetically engineer livestock so that they suffer much less.
This prospect stems from a new understanding of how mammals sense pain. The brain, it turns out, has two separate pathways for perceiving pain: a sensory pathway that registers its location, quality (sharp, dull or burning, for example) and intensity, and a so-called affective pathway that senses the pain’s unpleasantness. This second pathway appears to be associated with activation of the brain’s anterior cingulate cortex, because people who have suffered damage to this part of the brain still feel pain but no longer find it unpleasant. (The same is true of people who are given morphine, because there are more receptors for opiates in the affective pain pathway than in the sensory pain pathway.)
Neuroscientists have found that by damaging a laboratory rat’s anterior cingulate cortex, or by injecting the rat with morphine, they can likewise block its affective perception of pain. The rat reacts to a heated cage floor by withdrawing its paws, but it doesn’t bother avoiding the places in its cage where it has learned the floor is likely to be heated up.
Recently, scientists have learned to genetically engineer animals so that they lack certain proteins that are important to the operation of the anterior cingulate cortex. Prof. Min Zhuo and his colleagues at the University of Toronto, for example, have bred mice lacking enzymes that operate in affective pain pathways. When these mice encounter a painful stimulus, they withdraw their paws normally, but they do not become hypersensitive to a subsequent painful stimulus, as ordinary mice do.
Prof. Zhou-Feng Chen and his colleagues here at Washington University have engineered mice so that they lack the gene for a peptide associated with the anterior cingulate gyrus. Like the animals given brain lesions, these mice are normally sensitive to heat and mechanical pain, but they do not avoid situations where they experience such pain.
Given the similarity among all mammals’ neural systems, it is likely that scientists could genetically engineer pigs and cows in the same way. Because the sensory dimension of the animals’ pain would be preserved, they would still be able to recognize and avoid, when possible, situations where they might be bruised or otherwise injured.
The people who consumed meat from such genetically engineered livestock would also be safe. Knockout animals have specific proteins removed, rather than new ones inserted, so there’s no reason to think that their meat would pose more health risks for humans than ordinary meat does.
If we cannot avoid factory farms altogether, the least we can do is eliminate the unpleasantness of pain in the animals that must live and die on them. It would be far better than doing nothing at all.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Anti-Hunting letter to the Editor
From the News Guy Blog:
Of Salmon and Moose
Enough of that. Now let’s turn to that other kerfuffle, the one about that letter to the editor of the Burlington Free Press, the existence of which the Freep is trying to deny.
The letter, by Ethan A. Sims (apparently the highly respected, much-honored professor of medicine emeritus at the University of Vermont, though the News Guy was unable to reach him for confirmation) which appeared to suggest that, while hunters were out trying to shoot a moose, anti-hunters might want to shoot the moose-hunters.
At least that’s how a great many hunters understood it. Preferring to be predators rather than prey, these hunters and their organizations not unreasonably became upset, deluging the newspaper with so many angry letters to the editor that the editors surrendered.
Abjectly. Not because they apologized, which was defensible if perhaps not necessary. But because they removed the letter from the newspaper’s web site archives.
It became, then, an un-letter, rather the way some one-time associates of Stalin who fell out of favor (and soon thereafter of sight) had their names and photographs purged from the history books, becoming un-persons.
Because no one here was killed, tortured, or exiled, the editors hardly sink to Stalinism, or other aspects of Bolshevism except in their obvious toadiness. Theirs is the spirit not of the independent journalist but of the ever-obsequious courtier.
Besides, this not being Soviet Russia, suppression doesn’t work. Anyone with a desire to see the letter and an Internet connection can find it. Here it is:
On this beautiful day we learn that about 1,251 hunters are taking to the woods with legal permits to “pursue prized quarry.” Certainly the members of various humane organizations do not approve. I suggest that before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters who will be out to kill these beautiful, non-destructive animals. Or the government could just rule out all this primitive killing.
ETHAN A.H. SIMS Shelburne
As another letter-writer noted last Sunday (a letter the Free Press editors, to their credit, printed), Sims obviously didn’t really want anyone to shoot a moose hunter. His letter was Swiftian satire, modeled on Jonathan Swift’s famous Modest Proposal (1729) suggesting Ireland’s poor ease their penury by selling their children to be eaten.
Not that hunters should be blamed for insufficient attention to Dr. Sims’ literary playfulness, which would have alerted them to his motivation. Hunters feel put upon these days because everybody does. It’s the American way to think everybody’s out to get us, whoever “us” may be. In fact, a very small percentage of the American people actively oppose hunting, and they have not been taken seriously by most of the rest of us (the News Guy is a very pro-hunting non-hunter) at least since the anti-hunting group PETA called for New Yorkers to change the name of the Fishkill River, apparently unaware that “kill” is Dutch for “river,” and so the name is not evidence of anti-piscatorialism (though perhaps of redundancy).
The editors could have explained that Sims was not in fact urging the murder of anyone, simply expressing his own anti-hunting views in a sardonic manner and with some literary flourish. Such a rational response, however, does not come easily to courtiers. Instead, the paper apologized for running a letter “advocating for violence against hunters,” which the letter does not do.
Of Salmon and Moose
Enough of that. Now let’s turn to that other kerfuffle, the one about that letter to the editor of the Burlington Free Press, the existence of which the Freep is trying to deny.
The letter, by Ethan A. Sims (apparently the highly respected, much-honored professor of medicine emeritus at the University of Vermont, though the News Guy was unable to reach him for confirmation) which appeared to suggest that, while hunters were out trying to shoot a moose, anti-hunters might want to shoot the moose-hunters.
At least that’s how a great many hunters understood it. Preferring to be predators rather than prey, these hunters and their organizations not unreasonably became upset, deluging the newspaper with so many angry letters to the editor that the editors surrendered.
Abjectly. Not because they apologized, which was defensible if perhaps not necessary. But because they removed the letter from the newspaper’s web site archives.
It became, then, an un-letter, rather the way some one-time associates of Stalin who fell out of favor (and soon thereafter of sight) had their names and photographs purged from the history books, becoming un-persons.
Because no one here was killed, tortured, or exiled, the editors hardly sink to Stalinism, or other aspects of Bolshevism except in their obvious toadiness. Theirs is the spirit not of the independent journalist but of the ever-obsequious courtier.
Besides, this not being Soviet Russia, suppression doesn’t work. Anyone with a desire to see the letter and an Internet connection can find it. Here it is:
On this beautiful day we learn that about 1,251 hunters are taking to the woods with legal permits to “pursue prized quarry.” Certainly the members of various humane organizations do not approve. I suggest that before the next annual killing season, other residents be awarded legal permits to kill hunters who will be out to kill these beautiful, non-destructive animals. Or the government could just rule out all this primitive killing.
ETHAN A.H. SIMS Shelburne
As another letter-writer noted last Sunday (a letter the Free Press editors, to their credit, printed), Sims obviously didn’t really want anyone to shoot a moose hunter. His letter was Swiftian satire, modeled on Jonathan Swift’s famous Modest Proposal (1729) suggesting Ireland’s poor ease their penury by selling their children to be eaten.
Not that hunters should be blamed for insufficient attention to Dr. Sims’ literary playfulness, which would have alerted them to his motivation. Hunters feel put upon these days because everybody does. It’s the American way to think everybody’s out to get us, whoever “us” may be. In fact, a very small percentage of the American people actively oppose hunting, and they have not been taken seriously by most of the rest of us (the News Guy is a very pro-hunting non-hunter) at least since the anti-hunting group PETA called for New Yorkers to change the name of the Fishkill River, apparently unaware that “kill” is Dutch for “river,” and so the name is not evidence of anti-piscatorialism (though perhaps of redundancy).
The editors could have explained that Sims was not in fact urging the murder of anyone, simply expressing his own anti-hunting views in a sardonic manner and with some literary flourish. Such a rational response, however, does not come easily to courtiers. Instead, the paper apologized for running a letter “advocating for violence against hunters,” which the letter does not do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
