Politics and Law
U.S. Forest Service, Louisiana Declare "Emergency" to Pander to Hunters
Published July 03, 2009 @ 07:29AM PT
In a move that I haven't yet found a way to make intelligent sense of, the state of Louisiana--upon the U.S. Forest Service's request--declared a "state of emergency" (and no, there's no real emergency) to allow the Louisiana Wildlife and Fisheries Commission to vote yesterday "to eliminate the need for a special permit to hunt with dogs on Kisatchie National Forest and the requirement that hunters use electronic tracking collars and other forms of identification on their dogs." Even putting aside consideration for the animals intentionally wounded and killed (as everyone involved in this has), this move completely disregards the safety of the dogs exploited and endangered by hunters as well as the other people endangered by hunters.
In Louisiana, hunters barrel recklessly through Kisatchie National Forest to hunt deer, shooting recklessly as well and not paying much attention to the dogs they're using as hunting tools either, dogs who run off and get lost. And apparently, some landowners have complained (not, it seems, because they're terribly worried about deer or dogs, but because the dogs end up on their property). But the state government (and apparently even the federal government now) has moved to protect hunters' so-called right to do whatever they want, rather than protect animals, public safety, or other non-hunting humans.
Watch how this played out--how the federal and state governments went from moving to limit hunting and promote safety to trying to entrench and protect hunters' practices in law; it's nauseating-fascinating:
Update: Greyhound Racing at a Crossroads in Rhode Island
Published June 26, 2009 @ 02:49PM PT
UPDATE: Disregard the petition alerts for now. I didn't realize the General Assembly was rushing to finish up a session--it voted late this afternoon or early this evening, and it indeed voted, 61-9, to force the track operators not only to continue racing greyhounds, but to race them even more. I'll update more later. A Providence Journal blog post indicates that after the Senate's final vote (following House-made amendments), the governor plans to veto. Let's hope so.
I wrote a couple days ago that a Rhode Island greyhound track operator had referred to the outdated, cruel practice as a "dying industry." As you may recall, the article from which I quoted explained that the operators of the financially struggling (and bankruptcy-filing) gambling facility were planning to end greyhound racing there. The Twin River facility is home to the only dog track in Rhode Island. Its closure would be the effective end of greyhound racing in this small state.
But now the Rhode Island state government is taking extaordinary steps to force the business to continue racing greyhounds. It's time for people who care about these dogs to speak up and keep that from happening.
Missouri Offering New Incentives to Get Kids Killing Too
Published June 26, 2009 @ 07:01AM PT
Earlier this week, I lambasted Wisconsin's plans to lower its hunting age for kids, remove safety training requirements, and lower the price for kids' hunting licenses. So it's only fair that I now point out that my own less-than-progressive state is cutting its prices for kids' hunting permits too--in half--and that Missouri's minimum hunting age is even ridiculously lower: 6 years old. (But of course, as I briefly noted in the previous post on this topic, the majority of states don't have a minimum hunting age at all.) Like Wisconsin, Missouri hopes that this will encourage more kids to hunt or, perhaps more accurately, that it will encourage more adults to teach kids to hunt and kill.
Teach kindergartners to kill. And then complain about violence. That's what we do in this nation of "traditions."
Abuse and Torture an Animal, Get a Free Pass, from NC to CA
Published June 25, 2009 @ 06:58AM PT
Wisconsin, California, North Carolina--all three are places where in recent days those who've abused animals have been defended or received a wagging finger as punishment, by the court system and by their employers. From deer run over by snowmobiles to baby farm animals left to languish by a high school ag teacher to a police officer being demoted for caring about abused horses, with the horses going straight back to their abusers--it's a sad world out there this week.
Religious Discrimination and the Killing of Egypt's Pigs (Part 2)
Published June 24, 2009 @ 06:47AM PT
Please see part 1 of Kelly's exploration of this topic, "Egypt's Pigs: Beaten, Stoned, and Burned Alive (Part 1)", as well. -S. Ernst
Egypt is predominantly Muslim, with an estimated 85-90% of Egyptians practicing Islam. In contrast, about 9% of the country's population is comprised of Coptic Christians. In nations with such a power imbalance - where new legislation must conform to the religious majority's personal beliefs - those who belong to minority faiths are particularly vulnerable to discrimination.
Indeed, as the consumption of "pork" is prohibited by Islamic religious doctrine (and pigs are reviled as dirty and foul animals*), virtually all of Egypt's pig farmers are Coptic Christians. As we saw in Part 1, raising pigs for human consumption is their livelihood.
Obviously, a mass of animals, crammed into deficient housing and subsisting on garbage, constitutes a public health risk in and of itself. The Egyptian government's stated "public health" reasons might seem plausible, had they not initially cited "swine flu" as the overriding concern. Authorities promise that the "culls" aren't the end of pig farming, but rather a new beginning: with the nation's existing pig population gone, the government can relocate the farming operations to larger, less urban areas. Even so, Egypt's Coptic Christians remain skeptical - and with good reason.
Wisconsin Encourages 10-Year-Olds to Hunt, No Safety Training Required
Published June 23, 2009 @ 02:00PM PT
Note: I removed the photo that was included here because of increasing discomfort with how visible the kids' faces were. The photo showed too very young boys posing with a gun about as big as their bodies and a dead bloody-mouthed deer.
The state of Wisconsin is worried that not as many people are hunting these days, but they have a plan: start legally arming grade school kids.
The legislature has passed, and the governor is expected to sign, a bill making it easier for children to hunt, by lowering the legal age from 12 to 10 (that's fourth or fifth grade) and by removing safety-training requirements.
Now the kids--according to the law, and we could have a whole other conversation about how likely it is that all the points of law will be (or currently are) followed by everyone--need merely be accompanied by an adult, with only one weapon between them and with the adult staying within arm's length of the child. And I want to be clear: it is my understanding that there was a safety training requirement when only kids 12 years and older were allowed to wield deadly weapons and kill animals for fun, but now that the kids will be two years younger, two years less mature, and two years less responsible, no more safety requirement--and they're "offer[ing] youngsters reduced license fees in an effort to preserve the state's hunting culture" too. Someone, please, explain the logic to me. Explain to me how arming "youngsters" is a good idea.
Oh wait--here's the logic:
In Defense of PETA--Yes, You Read That Right--and the Fly Response
Published June 17, 2009 @ 07:14PM PT
*6/18: See the end of this post for an update*
I am all for criticizing PETA (or any other animal rights or welfare organization) when, and as often as, the group deserves to be criticized. That's probably become clear over the last nine months. I have no allegiances. But when people manufacture reasons to complain about a group or fail to scratch beyond the surface when they make their belittling complaints, in order to figure out what it is they're actually criticizing, I get annoyed.
Everyone with a computer--from mainstream bloggers to eco bloggers to my fellow animal rights bloggers (the latter two of which I expect better from) to anti-AR Twitterers--is commenting condescendingly or with what I imagine is a lot of eye-rolling about a very short remark that someone at PETA made in reference to President Obama swatting a fly during a televised interview. The angle everyone is playing up is that PETA went charging after Obama because of the fly-swatting: PETA doesn't know how to pick its battles! PETA did something crazy again! Except none of that is true.
