Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics
The Senate today shot down a motion to move forward on S. 2363, the dangerous if innocuous sounding “Sportsmen’s Act,” which has been portrayed as feel-good legislation but could have serious and far-reaching consequences for wildlife, public spaces, and human health and safety. The bill needed 60 votes to advance, but only received 41 in favor, and 56 opposed—a result of some Democrats opposing the bill because of its extreme provisions and Republicans uniting in opposition because they could not offer amendments on gun rights and other topics.
A bald eagle at Mystic Lake in Massachusetts. Photo by John Harrison
Sportsmen, of course, are already allowed to pursue their activities on the vast majority of federal public lands, including national forests, BLM lands, and most national wildlife refuges, with only national parks and some national monuments generally closed to hunting. That’s not to mention the millions of acres of state and private lands also available. But as things now stand, resource managers have the flexibility to look at the big picture and determine when it makes sense to allow hunting and fur trapping—and when it doesn’t. They consider local concerns such as whether endangered or threatened species are present, and balance the interests of hunters and trappers with other public land users and recreationalists.
S. 2363 would flip the burden and turn the current process on its head. Public lands would be “open unless closed” to hunting and fur trapping, regardless of whether they’re compatible with other land uses or threatened or endangered species, and closing lands would require a burdensome bureaucratic process. On top of that, the bill would force land managers to prioritize hunting and trapping above other outdoor activities, effectively excluding a large proportion of the American public from enjoying our national spaces, including in designated “wilderness areas.” Rather than local control, it would be a federal fiat from Washington that the default is to allow sport hunting and the use of painful and indiscriminate steel-jawed leghold traps.
The harmful legislation would also stop scientists at the EPA from restricting the use of lead ammunition, which is a known toxin that kills millions of wild animals from more than 130 species each year, including bald eagles, California condors, and other threatened and endangered species. These bullets keep on killing long after they’ve left the chamber, with animals poisoned by eating the lead fragments directly, preying on contaminated animals, or feeding on gut piles left behind by hunters.
President George H.W. Bush’s administration banned the use of lead for all waterfowl hunting in 1991, and non-lead ammunition such as copper, steel, and bismuth are readily available and affordable. That sensible policy has prevented the poisoning deaths of millions of birds, and it’s been part of the march of progress toward getting toxic lead out of the environment. There’s no compelling reason for Congress to thumb its nose at science and innovation, and forbid EPA or any other responsible agency, with appropriate authority and expertise, from even examining this issue.
a polar bear in the wild
Finally, this bill is a sweetheart deal for millionaire big-game hunters. Far from benefiting our nation’s rank-and-file sportsmen, this is a special order delivery for only 41 wealthy big game hunters who dropped up to $50,000 each for guided polar bear hunts in the Arctic. These trophy hunters, who compete to see their names in the Safari Club record books for killing the rarest species around the world, have been lobbying Congress to allow them to bring the heads and hides of threatened polar bears into this country from Canada in defiance of current law.
This would be the latest in a series of import allowances that Congress has approved—each time making the argument that it’s only a few animals and the polar bears are already dead and have no conservation value—but the cumulative impacts of these waivers time and time again lead to more reckless trophy killing. Do we want Congress to set this kind of precedent, encouraging trophy hunters to kill rare animals as they are about to be listed as endangered or threatened species and then to get relief from Congress to make a special dispensation for them?
Thank you to all the animal advocates who contacted your Senators and asked them to oppose this extreme and reckless “Sportsmen’s Act.” Those calls made a difference—a game-changing difference for millions of animals. Wild animals and the environment have dodged a bullet now that this terrible package of anti-conservation policies has stalled in the Senate.
|
Exposing the Big Game 
Why is hunting and killing animals called a sport?
Go to the site listed in the article to see how various senators voted. The nays include many strange bedfellows but the yeas are the more interesting. Included in their number are many “liberal” Democrats, self-anointed protectors of the downtrodden, relentless defenders of the underdog, and favored MSNBC guests: Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Marie Cantwell of Washington, Al Franken of Minnesota, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Patty Murray of Washington, Bernie (“Socialist”) Sanders of Vermont, Chuck Schumer of New York, Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, and Debbie Stabenow of Minnesota. These are the Congressional poster children for hypocritical scumbags and this bill all by itself should serve as an acid test for deciding whether any of them ever deserve your support or respect.
Good point, Geoff. Also both Democratic Senators from New Mexico are for this bill. I won’t be voting for them again! We may have dodged a bullet this time, but I fear this appalling bill is less like a bullet and more like a heat-seeking missle. For all our efforts, it keeps homing in.
Yep, we need to watch our tail, because it’s going to keep coming back at us again and again.
I checked the voting on this and the 56 votes against this bill were almost 100% Republicans, only a handful of Democrats. Not one Republican voted for the bill so they were unanimous in opposition. The votes for this awful bill were almost 100% Democrat and two Independents (King & Sanders). I know Republicans are treacherous as well, but let’s give credit where it’s due this time and stop thinking “progressives” are looking out for the animals’ and our rights. This sort of vile betrayal by liberal Democrats is no surprise to me.
Agreed that these Democrats are vile, opportunist, panderers, absolutely. When I think of ones like Al Franken who before his run for the Senate, was forever weepily pledging his undying support for the downtrodden and for victims of this or that injustice or Chuck Schumer who never misses an opportunity to preen his progressivist credentials before the cameras or Bernie Sanders, tireless socialist defender of the exploited proletariat, I want to vomit. Poseurs and hypocrites, every one. But let’s not leave the impression that the Republicans who voted against this bill were doing so because of their principled commitment to animal rights. As I understand the issue, they voted against the bill because they were denied the opportunity to offer various amendments to the bill having to do with “gun rights”, etc. If they’d had their way this bill would have been even more awful than written. If you can point out to me a Senate Republican who has been a better friend to animals and the environment than, say, Barbara Boxer, I’d be mightily interested.
The only thing worse than the Democrats, if that’s conceivable, are the Republicans. The only thing worse than President Obama, if THAT’S conceivable, is a President McCain or a President Romney. Pick your poison!
I don’t tell anyone they must be conservative to be for animals, I accept everyone. But your goal seems to be to convince me and others that we’re wrong for being conservative and wanting small government and not to have our income stolen to support things we don’t want; that we must become liberal socialists if wanting to be accepted by YOU in YOUR animal liberation movement. Sorry, but it doesn’t belong to you, politics are outside this.
You wanted some examples — There’s Senator Rob Kane of Connecticut who at least voted for his district to spend much more money caring for rescued abused animals: http://ctsenaterepublicans.com/2014/03/sen-kane-supports-bill-backed-by-animal-rights-groups/#.U8GB12cg_y9 And here are several Republicans holding various offices past or present, not only senators, with good to excellent records on animal issues: Justice Samuel Alito, Gov. Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Gary Herbert, Condoleezza Rice, Susana Martinez, Brian Sandoval, Rob Portman…and Dr. Ben Carson who may run for president in 2016 is vegetarian; from an LA Times article in Oct. 2009: ” Dr. Benjamin Carson, professor of neurosurgery, oncology and pediatrics and director of pediatric neurosurgery at the Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions in Baltimore, has noticed a similar change in attitudes. A vegetarian for 15 years, Carson is “amazed by the number of vegetarians today.” Attending scientific functions in the United States and abroad, he sends word ahead that he requires vegetarian food; at dinners with colleagues he finds, “Everybody is coveting my vegetarian meals.” ”
Now that’s vegetarian, not vegan, presumably, but he’s Seventh Day Adventist and many SDA’s are now vegans. And the first vegetarian president would a vastly different influence than anyone we’ve had in the white house before, except for perhaps vegetarian Ben Franklin, not president but a founding father of our country, and quite conservative.
So please just be glad this “sportsmen’s act” was roundly defeated by unanimous Republicans for whatever reason, as gun rights for self-defense is a good reason, even if not as great a reason as the animals. The deplorable votes by Democrats here are what needs addressing, what exactly was behind that?
I wouldn’t presume to tell you anything, Laura, unless I was purposely looking for an acid-etched, venomous response. I think that we who support the cause of animal rights can disagree but still remain civil.
Now to your specific points. I asked for the name of one Republican United States Senator notably sympathetic to the cause of animal rights, and I am still waiting. Connecticut’s two US senators are Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats. Rob Kane is in the state senate of Connecticut, not exactly a hotbed of animal rights’ or environmental legislation.
If anyone is in doubt about the two national political party’s positions on animal rights and the environment, they need only consult the League of Conservation Voters’ and the Humane Society of the US’s legislative scorecards and decide for themselves. As to your list of animal-friendly Republican politicians, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum! Really? I rest my case.
@Geoff: Okay, you’re right, socialist societies are Heaven on Earth for animals and I have no business being conservative and being vegan and an animal liberation activist…guess I’ll either bow out and let you good, smart people get it all done, or I’ll go socialist, hate the rich and believe in welfare states…I’ll become a real humanist. Yup, great plan.
Here’s someone else of my deplorable ilk who has the nerve to claim to be for animals: http://planetoftheanimals.blogspot.com/2010/07/pro-animal-rights-conservatives.html And I’m probably not with that good man on every issue, but it doesn’t matter…he’s truly for the animals and knows politics are outside of this.
And also keep in mind that Denmark, Socialist Heaven, is the home of animal “brothels” where animals (mostly dogs) are kept as prisoners and legally raped by paying customers who will torture, maim and kill innocent loving loyal beings in order for the scumbags to have orgasms. No hung-up puritans, them! I swear I would kill someone raping an animal if I actually came across one. It’s too unbelievable even to deal with. The big question is, why does Danish society put up with those people? What the hell is going on there? And don’t think I’m saying the US is much better, but at least we’re not that openly sadistic and deranged.
As for your questions: Rick Perry is far from an animal activist, but he has done several good things. He’s included here in a review of 2012 presidential candidates: http://peopleforanimals2011.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/921/
And “Sportsmen” hate Santorum: http://www.forbes.com/sites/frankminiter/2012/03/13/is-rick-santorum-a-closet-animal-rights-activist/
And Samuel Alito, conservative Justice appointed by George W. Bush, was the only member of the Supreme Court who actively and passionately opposed crush videos, the rest defended them as free speech. But can you ever give credit for anything good to a despised conservative?
And here’s an article by Matthew Scully: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/359761/pro-life-pro-animal-matthew-scully
I realize you despise people like me and think we’re total idiots, but I don’t care. Again, I welcome everyone into animal liberation and veganism…we need everyone, not just some exclusionary club of those who behave like political elitists. I’m really sick and tired of the attitude you expressed there, have seen it often. It’s counterproductive.
I’m sure you and Geoff would agree on nearly everything when it comes to non-human animals. He has quoted from Mathew Scully several times before and, Like you, he sees past the human politics to the bigger picture for animals.
PS: Wow, I notice that suddenly my comment is awaiting moderation. I’ll get out of here and stay out if my views are unwanted in this forum, James; just say the word, or don’t print my reply…same difference.
Check again, it’s approved, same as everything you or anyone else says that’s pro-animal. The only comments that get 86ed are from hunters and therefore against the animals. Sometimes WordPress holds back a comment from a previously approved commenter when it’s extra-long or has links attached. I approve them as soon as I go online; please be patient.
@Jim: Oh okay, I don’t think I ever had a comment pending approval in here…it’s probably all the links. Yes I appreciate Geoff and all the others who are for the animals, and I don’t care what sorts of positions they may have have on other issues, like Emily (Bite Size Vegan) in the youtube video says. She and I could not be more different in other areas, but for the animals we’re on the exact same page. Conservatives are looked down upon by many in this “movement” and it gets tiresome and annoying. My replies to Geoff may have been heated, but I have greater trochanteric pain syndrome from acute trauma (ha, the medical lingo) so I’m extra cranky lately, have to go around walking slow, resting, other such nonsense. I fell hard onto the “shock absorber” that protects the lower hip bone a couple of weeks ago. So pardon me I’m pissed 😉 …Seriously, think of how touchy we are about pains like this when animals undergo thousands of times worse throughout their “lives,” deliberately caused by human beings, and are further tortured during their deaths. My god, what sorts of monsters exist here? I so want animals free of this species’ derangement. If it were only inflicted on ourselves, I believe humanity would have completely disposed of these people ages ago. And there’d be no slaughterhouses, etc., now. The violent crime rate would be a tiny fraction of what it is, and I don’t believe we’d have ever heard of or even thought of baby rape. After all, the only reason such heartless sadistic killers have been condoned is because they’re the type who will do slaughter work, vivisection, etc. What a huge, foul cancer we’ve grown.
PPS: This says it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjMWxhRdGpM
Just to set the record straight, I’ve never stated nor do I believe that “socialist” countries or politicians are somehow more sympathetic in their treatment of animals than are capitalist societies. The point that I have made more than once is that the Left while purporting to be fundamentally concerned about the downtrodden, victims of injustice and discrimination, and the underdogs of society consistently ignores the plight of the most downtrodden, the most unjustly treated, the figurative and literal underdogs: non-human animals. Steve Best and John Sanbonmatsu have done excellent jobs of exposing this hypocrisy. And it is the rank hypocrisy that make lefties who ignore animal abuse so odious; at least a greedy capitalist makes no claims to being fundamentally opposed to societal injustice or unfairness. And Denmark, which you characterize as a “socialist heaven” and which reportedly is home to the happiest human population on earth, is a good example. Not only do its zoos exhibit a very callous attitude toward their animal inmates (witness the Marius Affair) but Denmark also administers Greenland and the Faeroe Islands both of which have an extremely bad record with respect to marine mammals. The Danes show no inclination towards suppressing the murderous tendencies of its dependencies and it regularly supports their efforts to increase whale quotas within the International Whaling Commission. Those actions alone undercut any acclaim for Denmark as being the world’s happiest, most egalitarian society. Something is indeed rotten in Denmark! Similarly, the socialist governments of Norway have been hell on wolves and whales. The French socialist president Mitterand was no friend of animals. Neither have been the socialist political parties in Canada who all support the Atlantic seal hunt. And we haven’t even touched upon the cruel fate of animals in the socialist regimes of the Orient. So, I’m no friend of socialism any more than I’m a friend of capitalism or communism. To paraphrase Lincoln: I’ve no respect for a man’s political leanings if his animals aren’t the better for it.
Thank you for clearing that up; I’m no fan of politics either; please see my reply above to Jim if you want more of an explanation. No hard feelings towards you here. So long for now.