On September 26th 2013, just in time for “National Hunting and Fishing Day,” Sally Jewell, our new (and allegedly improved) Secretary of the Interior announced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposal to expand hunting opportunities throughout the National Wildlife Refuge System. The plan would open up hunting on six refuges currently free from armed ambush and expand existing hunting and fishing on another 20 “refuges.” The new rule would also modify existing regulations for over 75 additional refuges and wetland “management” districts.
The proposal is yet another nod to the “hunter’s rights” movement that has been sweeping the nation.
But what about the wildlife’s right to a true refuge, free from human hunting? Oh that’s right, animals don’t have rights, only humans—even including hunters—do. It is such an arrogant and absurd notion that sport hunters—arguably the lowest creatures to ever crawl out of the primordial ooze—have rights, while…
View original post 1,119 more words
Exposing the Big Game 
I think the Obama administration thought placating would help, and all it did was embolden. Don’t want the wolverine delisted? Okay. Let’s all hold hands and work together to save the sage grouse! Didn’t happen. Not only was the bird not listed; any plans to protect them and their habitat promised were taken to court and opposed. Want the wolves delisted? Vote for us in Montana and we’ll do it. Never happened. Montana’s still red and killing wolves without restraint.
Most all of or interior secretaries have been bad in their own way. She was a do-nothing type. Now we’ve got Zinke, taking the giveaways of the Obama administration and running with them.
When did the last Secretary of the Interior help animals? As for “refuge,” the very word is an insult to hunters and trappers who want access to wildlife everywhere. Most of the bureaucrats are part of the crony system and won’t fight the NRA and all the organised hunting/trapping groups.
Most animal activists are in a closed loop on the Internet agreeing on the evils of animal abuse and clicking and petitioning to stop it. But in the real world the exploiters are running the show from their big organizations political connections.
You’re right. Breaking up that gang of natural resources exploiters and animal abusers theirs is what should be being done. And that includes recreationists who only want to conquer the environment instead of protect it. Many, many people of both political parties are opposed to animal abuse and exploiting the environment. Preaching to the choir does nothing.
She didn’t do much. Her hiring was identity politics. And she was considered an environmentalist because she like to climb mountains. I’d call that a recreationist. Her thing was getting more children into the National Parks, and I don’t know if she even did that. The problem I have with that premise is that it’s not everybody’s thing, and you can’t force it on them. And some people should never be let loose anywhere near a national park because they are incapable of appreciating them. It assumes that everyone is the same, and will be magically transformed by visiting a park. But not everyone is the same.
The worst thing was the celebrated cooperative effort to save the sage grouse, which turned out to be a big nothing. If the bird had been ESA listed, we’d still be in court but the birds would be protected. Now we’re fighting just to do anything for them.
I feel really bad about the sage grouse. I don’t like to see any creature (or plant) become extinct, especially if we had a part in it. But the sage grouse are so beautiful besides.
Sometimes I think we get so used to people we agree with and share values with. It always still surprises me when I read comments sections in nonanimal-oriented publications where people are just clueless and careless when it comes to wildlife and animals generally.
It can be shocking…
Yes. Alarming.