Showing posts with label Political action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Political action. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

More on Montana training regulations

I attended the Billings hearing last night. The sporting dog community was well represented and vocal.

Montana FWP announced that they were NOT going to pursue rule-making in this matter but were expecting that it would take the form of proposed legislation, which would be a comprehensive overhaul and total re-write of proposed regulations. In other words, they tossed the potato upstairs. It is now highly possible that the proposed legislation will not be ready until some time next year, and might never move out of committee to the floor for a vote.

HOWEVER, the FWP has asked for comments to assist in shaping the possible legislation and we should all put pen to paper (or get on our keyboards) to suggest some sensible permitting rules and process that would protect the wild bird resource and the ability to train on wild birds before and after the nesting season. With a formal permitting process in place the state would know how many trainers are training dogs on wild birds, where they are training, and how many dogs are being trained. It is my belief that this actual (not imagined) data will reveal that the 'problem' is largely imaginary.

I will post a link to the proper forms and a contact point as soon as I am able.

Meanwhile, you may continue training as always. Please have a good thought for those people who stood up and forced this frivolous rule making to take a more sensible course.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Meetings scheduled on Montana Dog Training regs

Here's the latest... from a field trialer I know in Bozeman...

The Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks has released a schedule of statewide hearings as a result of a year or two ago missteps of dog trainers in Eastern Montana. Apparently, they believe that some regulation is in order. While some regulation isn't bad, the wrong regulation is disastrous. I am not the lead man on this topic but noticed this release in the Spokane Spokesman & Review and wanted to pass it on. If I've missed anyone, please forward it.

Public hearings on the proposed rule changes will be held as follows:

http://www.spokesman.com/blogs/outdoors/2017/sep/13/bird-dog-training-restrictions-air-montana-meetings/

  • Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 4 headquarters at 4600 Giant Springs Rd., Great Falls 
  • Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 5 headquarters at 2300 Lake Elmo Dr., Billings
  • Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 6 headquarters at 54078 US-2, Glasgow
  • Oct. 2, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 7 headquarters at 352 I-94 Business Loop, Miles City
  • Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP headquarters at 1420 E. 6th Ave., Helena
  • Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 1 headquarters at 490 N. Meridian Rd., Kalispell
  • Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 2 headquarters at 3201 Spurgin Rd., Missoula
  • Oct. 10, 6 p.m. at FWP Region 3 headquarters at 1400 S. 19th Ave., Bozeman
Clearly, the field trail community, as well as any dog owners, need to have a voice in this process. John McIltrot has been very front and center on this and has a very logical view of the concept.

If you are in Montana, please try to attend one of these meetings... it will only take an hour or so and they are in the evening, so it won't cut into hunting time.

See you there.

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Trouble in Bird Dog Paradise

I recently became aware of a threat to bird dog folks who live in or visit Montana and train on wild birds. You need to read this, then call Mike Lee at FWP - the number is: 406-444-4039


The Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is preparing to make dog training on wild birds essentially illegal without permission from the agency director. Conditions under which a "permit" might be acquired and the restrictions attached there to are not defined in the proposal. 

The ruling that FWP is proposing to adopt is:
  1. NEW RULE I PERMIT TO TRAIN DOGS IN UPLAND GAME BIRD NESTING AREAS


REASON: In recent years, the department has received both written and verbal complaints regarding massive dog training occurrences, primarily in Eastern Montana on both private and public ground. The dog training that has been documented includes as many as 60 dogs and also includes the use of horses. This happens in the months prior to hunting season and has had negative effects on the local bird populations and has decreased opportunity for the hunting public. 

The Fish and Wildlife Commission was also approached by bird hunters who were noticing a large decrease in the available birds during the hunting season. The commission in turn asked the department to do something to curtail the large-scale dog training. 

MCA 87-4-915 (5)(a) Dogs may be trained in open fields at any time without permission of the director only if:
(i) live game birds are not killed or captured during training; and
(ii) the training is more than 1 mile from any bird nesting or management area or game preserve.
The language in the statute indicates that permission from the director is needed to train dogs in bird nesting areas, management areas, or game preserves. The statute does not describe the mechanism by which an individual may attain permission nor does it define what bird nesting areas, management areas, or game preserves are. The language in the proposed rule will provide for that and help define a permitting system for the activities in question.
4. Concerned persons may submit their data, views, or arguments concerning the proposed action in writing to: Enforcement Division, Attn: Mike Lee, Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, P.O. Box 200701, Helena, Montana, 59620- 0701; or e-mail FWPDogTraining@mt.gov, and must be received no later than June 9, 2017.
5. If persons who are directly affected by the proposed action wish to express their data, views, or arguments orally or in writing at a public hearing, they must make written request for a hearing and submit this request along with any written comments to Mike Lee at the above address no later than May 26, 2017.
6. If the agency receives requests for a public hearing on the proposed action from either 10 percent or 25, whichever is less, of the persons directly affected by the proposed action; from the appropriate administrative rule review committee of the Legislature; from a governmental subdivision or agency; or from an association having not less than 25 members who will be directly affected, a hearing will be held at a later date. Notice of the hearing will be published in the Montana Administrative Register. Ten percent of those directly affected has been determined to be greater than 25 persons based on the number of people in Montana who bird hunt with bird dogs. 

 Back channel information...  

This proposal apparently sprang into being at the behest of a small group of land owners in the Scobey area (in the far northeastern corner of Montana). Friction has been building between the landowners and a professional bird dog trainer. The land owners want to sell bird hunts and feel that the dog trainer scatters the birds while training in the pre-birdseason dog training period - July 15 to August 31. Add to this the apparently abrasive attitude of the trainer and there 'ya go - a new state law that will punish everyone. 

 More effective ways to disturb/scatter game birds prior to the season...

1. Build lots of new roads and fraking ponds/well sites, etc.

2. Fail to order enough local rainfall, or too much, or allow hail to fall on your hunting/ranching area when the birds are nesting.

3. Cut your hay, wheat, barley, etc. before nesting is completed. You will produce lots of dead/dying young game birds for the crows, vultures, and four footed consumers.

4. Spray pesticides and herbicides on the earth.

5. Take land out of CRP for crop production. 

6. Eliminate ground cover and edge cover for game birds by discing and planting marginal ground.

Personally, I think running some dogs across the countryside is very far down from the top of the list. But it might help a few people at the expnse of many others.

I have been going to Montana to train may dogs every summer for most of the past decade. I run on private ground with the permission of the land owner. I put a little money into the local economy. It is  great place to train. If I can't go there, I'll go to the Dakotas, Idaho, Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Manitoba. 

There are more than a few people who derive a living from training bird dogs in Montana, and there are many people, professionals and amateurs alike, who go to the last best place for bird dogs and bird hunters in prder to train on real live game birds. Sadly, the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is attempting to make this ruling and avoid the process of holding hearings for public input prior to adoption of the new rules. Go to the department site and comment and call Mike Lee (and anyone else you know at FWD). If the phone lights up and enough comments are posted, perhaps this can be beaten back or modified to allow sensible use of the resource.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

California DFG throws West Coast striped bass under the bus...

Photo from California DFG  website

The striped bass has been an important Northern California fishery for over a century. But since the beginning of massive water exports from the Delta in the 1980s the population has been seriously reduced – along with the historic chinook salmon runs and a number of native Delta species.

Just as the Striped bass in California were showing signs of recovery, the California Department of Fish and Game has proposed new regulations that include...
  • Increasing the daily limit from two stripers to six stripers
  • Lower the minimum size limit from 18” to 12”
  • Establish a South Delta catch limit of FORTY fish per day
  • Allow taking in a number of coastal rivers south of SF Bay that have previously been off limits

If this sounds like a plan to decimate the striped bass fishery, it is. Why?

The problem is the Endangered Species Act, Delta water pumping and the greed of powerful southern agriculture interests.

The ESA has mandated protection of certain Delta species... notably the chinook salmon and the delta smelt. This resulted in curtailing water exports from the Delta, which reduced the amount of cheap water being shipped south to irrigate the crops of agribusiness in the San Joaquin Valley.

These agribusiness interests, operating under the benign sounding name of the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta, brought suit in Federal court claiming that the reduction in these now endangered species was not due to the 6,633,000 acre feet of being exported out of the Delta system, but was due to the predations of the striped bass – an introduced species that would not be protected under the ESA in California. The fact that the striped bass and other Delta species existed side by side without problems until massive water exports began and that there is almost no scientific data to link striped bass to reduction in native Delta species did not cloud their thinking in the least.

NOTE: To provide a scale for comparison, the 2011 Delta water exports would flood the entire surface of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (10,555 square miles) with a foot of water...

In short, the court ordered the DFG to prepare a 'management plan' that would redress this striped bass “problem”. The DFG responded with it's new proposal in November of 2011. Biology had nuthin' to do with it...
Here are some facts about fish endangered by the Delta pumps feeding the California and Central Valley Water Projects...

The annual export total, including water diverted by the Contra Costa Canal and North Bay Aqueduct, was 6,633,000 acre-feet in 2011 – 163,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,470,000 acre-feet set in 2005, according to DWR data. The annual export total, excluding water diverted by the Contra Costa Canal and North Bay Aqueduct, was 6,520,000 acre-feet in 2011 – 217,000 acre-feet more than the previous record of 6,303,000 acre-feet set in 2005. 

One of the reasons for the record-setting pumping is that much of the water this year went to refill the underground Kern Water Bank, largely controlled by billionaire farmer Stewart Resnick, and to the smaller Diamond Valley reservoir, which serves Southern California,” according to Mike Taugher of the Contra Costa Times. (http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-news/ci_19014459
Ironically, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California offered water at discount prices in 2011, since southern California reservoirs largely filled. 
'Southern California’s water wholesaler is offering up cut-rate surplus supplies for the first time since 2007, but few local providers can buy in because they are short on storage space,...' according to an article by Janet Zimmerman in the Riverside Press-Enterprise on July 10. (http://www.pe.com/localnews/stories/PE_News_Local_D_surplus11.3abcf4c.html
The record pumping from the Delta – used to fill the Stewart Resnick-controlled Kern Water Bank and southern California reservoirs – resulted in a huge, unprecedented fish kill at the Delta pumps in 2011. Agency staff “salvaged” a total of 11,158,025 fish in the Delta water pumping facilities between January 1 and September 7, 2011 alone. 
A horrific 8,985,009 Sacramento splittail, the largest number ever recorded, were salvaged during this period, according to DFG data. The previous record salvage number for the splittail, a native minnow found only in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River system, was 5.5 million in 2006. 
The fish “salvaged” at the “death pumps” of the state and federal water projects also include hundreds of thousands of threadfin shad, striped bass, American shad, white catfish and other species. DFG data reveals that 742,850 threadfin shad, 514,921 American shad, 496,601 striped bass and 100,373 white catfish were “salvaged” between January 1 and September 7 of this year. 
Agency staff also “salvaged” 35,560 Sacramento River spring run and fall run chinooks, 1,642 Central Valley steelhead and 14 green sturgeon in the project facilities during the same period. 
While no comprehensive studies have been conducted on how many of the salvaged fish survive, fish advocates believe that the majority of many species perish during and after the salvage process. 
Although the salvage counts are certainly alarming, the overall loss of fish in and around the State Water Project and Central Valley Project facilities is believed to be much greater than the salvage counts. The actual loss could be 5 to 10 times the salvage numbers, according to “A Review of Delta Fish Population Losses from Pumping Operations in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta,” prepared by Larry Walker Associates in January 2010 for the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District – Facts researched and assembled by Mr. Dan Blanton

More to come on the latest in sanity of California game management and water policy.

Monday, June 6, 2011

Sportsmen for Responsible Energy Development

I have written about the threat of energy development on Western lands. The seemingly willy-nilly issuance of oil and gas leases has dwarfed the Gold Rush in 1849.

Go here to read more: http://www.sportsmen4responsibleenergy.org/recommendations.html

Friday, February 26, 2010

A bad idea... please vote the poll

California State Senator Dean Florez, author of California SB 250 - the Mandatory Sterilization Bill - introduced a new bill this week, SB 1277, to establish an animal abuse registry. Is this a good idea? Go to PetPac to express your opinion...

Here’s what we know about SB 1277:

1. The millions in costs to set up the registry will be paid for by a new tax on pet food.

2. The sponsor of the bill, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, is known for its advocacy of pet guardianship and vegetarianism.

3. The author of the bill, Senator Dean Florez, has been the leading advocate for mandatory sterilization.

Please let your voice be heard on this important issue.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

SB250 beaten back for now...

The California Assembly Appropriation Committee met today to consider SB 250 (the Mandatory Spay and Neyter bill). Charlie Hjerpe was there, and offers this report...

I just got back from the Assembly Appropriations Committee hearing on SB 250. After about an hour of testimony and voting on several other bills, it was announced that Senator Dean Florez had withdrawn SB 250 and placed it in the "suspense " file. No supporters of the bill were present, as they must have been tipped off before hand. Two opposition spokespersons were allowed to speak, but only very briefly. An AKC representative spoke effectively about the adverse fiscal impact that would result from cancellation of all of the bench shows held in California. I can't remember what the NAIA representative had to say. Following that, the Committee Chairman, Kevin De Leon, asked if there were any supporters of SB 250 present (there were none) and then asked those who were opposed to SB 250 to stand. Nearly everyone present in the room then stood. However, none of us were allowed to announce our affiliations or to speak. I could not see how many were seated in the balcony, but there were about 100 to 150 people present in the room below the balcony where I was sitting. Nothing even close to the thousands present for the Senate Local Government hearing on AB 1634, in July of 2007!


Then, several DEMOCRATIC Assemblymembers rose to express opposition to the bill. One of them stated that he hoped that the people bringing these kinds of bills before the State Legislature would stop doing so. He also noted that these MSN options are available at the city and county level, and that it was inappropriate to deal with these issues at the statewide level.


I have to believe that the tide was turned against this bill by two events: (1) the June 9 story in the SF Chronicle about SB 250 having it's greatest impact on low income people, and (2) the release of the 2008 California Department of Public Health county animal shelter statistics, which showed that the increases in impounds and euthanasias were 11x higher in LA County than in all of the rest of the state put together.


This bill was very bad news for California dog owners. We hope that after this the bill will die, as did AB 1634 last year, and the subject of statewide mandatory spay and neuter will not arise again.


Shame on Senator Dean Florez for authoring and sponsoring this ill-informed, ignorant piece of legislation. The HSUS worked on this bill, and I believe may have actually authored or had substantial influence on it's creation. It certainly takes a page directly from their political playbook. 

Tuesday, June 30, 2009

SB250 closer to becoming law

Here is a bit of the bulletin received today from Dr. Charlie Hjerpe DVM...

"I attended and briefly spoke at the Assembly Local Government Committee hearing on SB 250 this morning. There were a fair number of people present who opposed the bill, but nothing like the thousands that were there 2 years ago, when the Senate Local Government Committee defeated AB 1634. About 15 people spoke for the bill, and about 50 to 70 spoke against it, which was just about everyone there who was opposed..."

Regrettably, the committee passed the bill through despite the fact that not all the committee members were present. The final vote may be as soon as this week. We need those NO letters, faxes and phone calls from you.

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Politics as usual in California

UPDATE - SB 250 passed the California Senate today by ONE vote. Now it goes to the Assembly, where it will be more difficult to defeat. 
______________________________________________

The California State Senate Majority Leader, Dean Florez (D - 16th District) has done an end run in his bid to score points with the Humane Society of the United States. Due to the adverse fiscal impacts of SB 250, a 'one strike' law that requires the spaying or neutering of any dog whose owner is in violation of dog laws (except barking), Florez has shifted the enforcement costs to local municipalities - an end run that lets him claim that it has no impact on the state budget.

The Hayden Act already requires the state to re-imburse local municipalities for the costs of enforcing mandatory state animal control activities. This costs the state $25 million a year. But wait -- the state has already said that they will not be able to pay these claims for at least four years. Now Florez wants to add to that by end running the Local Government Committee and bring SB 250 to the Senate floor without a proper hearing before that committee.

at left, Senator Dean Florez poses with Jennifer Fearing, HSUS lobbyist

Flores has moved to the left on the Animal Rights issues. From his own press release in May of this year... "Jennifer Fearing, a lobbyist for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and one of the chief strategists behind last year's Prop. 2, said this (the realignment of the Senate Ag Committee when Florez assumed the chairmanship) was a big part of the reason for the revamping of the committee. She and her boss, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle, sat down with Florez in December to talk strategy." Damn, I thought I recosgnized the langauge in SB 250 - pure Wayne Pacelle.

Earlier this month - on Wednesday May 19th - Senator Florez appeared with officials of the Humane Society of the United States to debut a new film targeting the food industry. Florez pushed through two other bills - to prevent tail docking of dairy cattle and to force egg farmers to provide larger cages, winning the praise of HSUS chief executive Wayne Pacelle, who said,"It took 100 years to get farm animal legislation moving, but we got two bills within 10 minutes," They must be the best of friends by now.

Hey, DEAN we know you are preparing a run for the Lt. Governorship in 2010, and that a partner like HSUS - with a $120 million annual budget to spend on pushing their animal rights agenda - would be a fine partner for you. My question is... what is it going to cost US, the citizens of California? 

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

ABC Atlanta on HSUS and their money... watch it!


Sorry, you cannot watch this video - it seems that the ABC affiliate in Atlanta has caved in to pressure from HSUS, removed this report from their archive, and demanded that YouTube remove it from their site under threat of copyright litigation. It is a sad day when the free press loses it's nerve. This was a fair and accurate report, and you can find a transcript of it HERE.

Sunday, May 10, 2009

SB250 is not going away - action needed!

In a nutshell, the current SB 250 - introduced by Senate Majority Leader Senator Dean Flores of Bakersfield - is an ugly piece of legislation. This is a "One Strike" law that would require the spaying or neutering (at the owners expense) of any intact dog for any infraction of the dog or owner, except excessive barking. It would also require that any OTHER intact dogs of that owner also be spayed or neutered.

So, if your dog is unlicensed, gets loose for any reason, or is the subject of any complaint, you are guilty, and your dog(s) will have to be altered - and you must pay for the surgery - before you get them back from the animal control agency.

There is no legal recourse, as the only appeal provided in SB250 is the animal control people who are charged with enforcing the law!

This is a Draconian piece of legislation that has the finger prints of the HSUS all over it, and reeks of politics, as the sponsor is leveling his sights on a run for Lt. Governor in the next election.

Write a letter (not an e-mail) and fax it to every politico in Sacramento, starting with your own state Senator. It is time to deal another defeat to HSUS.

Saturday, April 11, 2009

The latest in sanity

California Senate Bill 250 has been amended and set for a hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee for April 15th. All California fanciers, responsible dog owners and breeders, and clubs should write and oppose this legislation. Letters must be received by April 8 to be reflected on the committee analysis.

SB 250's primary intent is to penalize owners of intact animals and force sterilization of an at-large or unlicensed dog or cat on a first offense - at the owner's sole expense. This is an unreasonable standard as even a responsible owner can have a single incident where an animal is let out by a meter reader, neighbor or faulty gate.

As amended on April 2; SB 250:

 > Allows an unaltered license to be revoked if one citation is issued for a dog being at-large or stray. No legal resourse is provided. Appeals must be made to the animal control agency that is bringing the action against the owner. It also appears that ALL intact animals in an owner's care would be subject to forced sterilization on a single offence.

> Requires a person selling, trading, or placing for adoption an unaltered animal to post the license number if the animal is older than four months, or the age required by the local licensing agency. (The prior version of the bill required a licensing number for any sale of an unaltered animal, and it was unclear how this would affect the sale of puppies and kittens younger than four months who were not required to be license.)

> Requires any unlicensed intact animal that is impounded to be sterilized, even on a first offense.

> Adds a new definition of "custodian" as follows; "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog or cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog or cat on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days. "Custodian" does not include a licensing agency."

Existing state law already requires owners of intact animals to pay a license fee that is at least double that to license a sterilized animal (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.5); and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.7). These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are repeatedly impounded.

Please help defeat this harassment... write or fax in opposition.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

SB 250 - Mandatory Spay/Neuter in California is back!

AB 1634 - the mandatory spay and neuter bill introduced by Senator Lloyd Levine and defeated after a prolonged struggle over the last two years is back - this time as SB 250 - introduced by Senator Dean Florez (Democrat., Fresno/Bakersfield). Kern County, the core of Flores' constituency, has the worst shelter kill record in the state. They kill a lot of adoptable dogs in Kern County. 

The name has been changed, but it's the same old crap. In a state that is struggling with huge revenue shortfalls and divisive politics do we need to pursue these costly, frivolous and punitive attacks against the property of the taxpayers? While school districts are laying off teachers are we going to be hiring more dog catchers? Apparently so.

Senator Florez' website provides a bio that includes this description of his areas of activity...

Florez has been an outspoken leader in the areas of clean air, equality in education, food safety, animal rights, high-speed rail, government accountability and infrastructure financing and development.

I guess that "Animal Rights" includes mandatory animal mutilation. Right? 

He bills himself as a finance professional and is a Harvard MBA graduate. He is Majority leader in the Senate. Perhaps he chooses to ignore the burdensome costs that this proposed law will place on municipalities (already over-stressed), enforcement professionals and the dog owning taxpayers of California - who are already seething over the mismanagement and new taxes being levied on them in Sacramento by a predominantly Democratic legislature. Do I smell revolt in the air? I sure as Hell hope so!

Here is a link to the text. Please read it, get mad, and fire off a letter to your California State Senator in opposition. Then go on strike. The idiots in Sacramento are living in a dream world, and this is another piece of compelling evidence.

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

a petition to consider

For those of you concerned about dog owners' rights and privileges being curtailed by the aggressive lobbying of animal rights organizations like PETA and HSUS who see the recent change in presidential leadership as a golden opportunity, please consider completing this petition put together by PetPAC.

PetPAC is a California-based pet owners advocacy group that is best-known for its efforts in coordinating resistance to a recurring piece of mandatory spay-neuter legislation most recently known as AB1634 -- and happily retired, at least for now.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

A quick note

This is from Tom Nygard in Montana...
There is a bill proposed in North Dakota that would dramatically alter the way pro trainers operate in North Dakota. It would change the date that pros can let dogs go on wild birds. I've created a blog that is in opposition to it and it needs to be signed and posted to all that can see it. We only have until tomorrow to gather names.

Tom Nygard


Click here and sign the petition

Tuesday, January 6, 2009

As close to politics as I want to get on this blog...

In an article reviewing the role that VP Dick Cheney played in the Bush Administration's environmental policy and decisions, I found a vindication of what I long ago came to believe was a purely White House driven political act - the de-watering of the Klamath River to levels that provoked the death of an estimated 100,000 salmon.

This makes me 'right', but it does not not make me feel any better. Perhaps we should all feel worse that it is possible for a single man to countermand legal safeguards put in place by the legislature at the recommendation of unbiased scientists. 

And the valuable crops that had to be saved for the Klamath basin farmers? Mint. That's right, the stuff used to make mint juleps, chocolate mint ice cream, tooth paste, and chewing gum.

Friday, December 12, 2008

Thoughts on hunting and food

A lot of good discussion is going on about hunting, what it means, how to explain hunting to non-hunters. If you haven't already done so it is enlightening and refreshing to read what's on at Stephen Bodio's QuerenciaHunter Angler Gardener Cook, and Fat of the Land. Great stuff.

MDMNM on Often Far Afield offers a discussion of hunting and the right to hunt and has this good thought, with which I am in agreement:

...The most promising group of hunting friendly (non hunting) folks I perceive right now are the cooks and chefs focusing on the source of their food, folks who read and talk about Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma". 

This is the time of year when a game dinner is most pleasing and possible. I seem to have quite a few birds in the freezer - doves, partridge, pheasant and grouse. In January I will review a couple of my favorite foreign books - from places where game is mainstream fare and garners respect on the table.

Heading off to Jamaica for Christmas early next week, but will remain 'plugged in'. Merry Christmas all!

Friday, December 5, 2008

Pocketbook Animal Rights

Pocketbook Animal Rights

The ‘Fart Tax’ and You

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

As if there isn’t enough to worry about, the federal Environmental Protection Agency is telling us that cow farts are hurting the atmosphere and contributing to global warming.

You can stop laughing now.

It’s true. EPA actually is proposing to regulate farmers and ranchers to protect us from emissions from flatulent hogs and cows.

The deadline for comments on the proposed anti-fart regulations passed quietly a week ago.

If the regulations are approved, farmers and ranchers with at least 25 head of livestock will be taxed at $175 per dairy cow, $87.50 per beef cow and $20 per hog.

Preposterous, you might say, and you’re right.

But we would call it something else. We would call it calculated and deliberate.

It stems directly from the animal rights agenda, which is aimed at eliminating animals from American life, including animals that produce meat, milk, eggs and wool. The goal is to reinvent America as a vegan vegetarian society.

We imagine that you are still laughing.

Preposterous! America loves a good t-bone, Big Macs, milkshakes and eggs fried in sausage drippings. Yum.

You are correct in thinking that Americans will not allow meat, eggs and dairy products to be removed from our lives. Surveys show that more than 95-percent of us eat meat and love every bite we can get.

What you may not be thinking is that no one is planning to give us that choice.

The following analysis can be seen as a case study on how the animal rights agenda actually is being implemented in America today. While this example is about the planned elimination of meat, eggs and dairy products from our lives, slight variations in the same strategy also are being used to eliminate companion animals, circuses, rodeos and hunting.

The animal rights groups may be evil personified, but their leaders aren’t dumb. They know that Americans will not give up animal products voluntarily, and they aren’t going to try the direct approach. They’d lose, and they know it.

Their tactic is to indirectly and gradually take away our ability to choose to eat meat.

The logical tactic is to make animal products too expensive for people to use and enjoy regularly, and also to make farming unprofitable and more hassle than it’s worth.
Did you notice how the price of beef skyrocketed after the “mad cow disease” scare a couple of years ago? In about a month, most cuts of beef went up by about two dollars a pound.

The reason is that meat producers were assessed for the cost of a massive federal inspection and regulatory program, and for developing a way to track each animal from the slaughterhouse back in time to the place of its birth.

Suddenly, a half-decent steak costs $10 a pound. If you’re lucky, you can find it on sale for $6.99 or so.

How many people can afford that?

For most people, a juicy t-bone steak probably always has been only an occasional treat, perhaps once or twice a month. Now, it has become once or twice a year.

Have you noticed how small the meat section has become in most grocery stores? Have you noticed how small the portions have become?

I define a good steak as one pound or larger and marbled with fat. Most steaks in the grocery store are a little more than half that size today, and the meat looks like the cow was anorexic.

Part of the reason is the high price of beef. Another part of it is the health scare about cholesterol.

While cholesterol is a valid health concern for many people, the animal rights groups are exploiting this and other health issues to try to make people afraid to eat much meat.

I recall a billboard along I-35 in Dallas that was a photo of former President Ronald Reagan, linking his meat eating preferences with Alzheimer’s disease. Guess who sponsored this crude and tasteless billboard? It wasn’t the American Medical Association. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) paid for the billboard.

If Alzheimer’s doesn’t get you, “mad cow” disease or cholesterol will. That’s the message.

Meat already is being heavily taxed because of the brief “mad cow” disease scare. Now, EPA wants to tax it more because of cow fart emissions.

What’s next? A tax on meat because of its health risks similar to the extra taxes on cigarettes?

Yep. Give ‘em time. It won’t be long before some governmental agency proposes a big tax on every pound of meat to pay for “prevention” programs in the schools and social services agencies, mirrored after the tobacco use prevention campaigns. You’ll know the time has come when you start to see news reports about meat eaters driving up the cost of health insurance.

Enter the $20 a pound t-bone steak.

Exit meat from many people’s budgets.

That’s the plan, but it doesn’t stop here. The next big step is the National Animal Identification System (NAIS), which currently is “voluntary” but is expected to become mandatory soon.

The NAIS plan is to license every location that produces poultry and livestock, and to assign each farm or ranch owner a unique identification number (that also applies to someone who owns a horse, or a couple of 4H goats). Then, at some point, every domestic animal and bird on American farms will be microchipped to determine its place of birth, and it will be tracked on computer all the way from the farm to the grocery store.

Guess how much that is going to cost? Guess who will pay for it?

Microchips can be purchased in bulk today for about $1.50 apiece. Suddenly the $3 frying chicken sold at the grocery store for $1.39 a pound has become a $4.50 chicken.

Add in the cost of bureaucracy and additional expenses for farmers, shippers and slaughterhouses, and it becomes a $6.50 chicken.

A lot of Americans won’t be able to afford to eat much chicken at those prices. It looks like a good time to invest your money in bean burrito company stock.

And that is precisely the plan!

The bureaucratic and compliance costs of NAIA will be enormous. Imagine what it will take to constantly track a truckload of 10,000 chickens individually on computers!

What’s the justification for these costs? “Bird flu,” of course, even though no form of this poultry disease that is communicable to humans has ever been found in the Americas.

The animal rights groups know exactly what they are doing. They find something scary about meat (Alzheimer’s disease, cholesterol, “Mad Cow” disease or “bird flu”) and then work quietly behind the scenes to exploit it. They have a lot of flunky newspaper and TV reporters in their pockets, and a lot of bureaucrats are smelling a lot of job security.

And a frying chicken will cost $6.50…for a small one.

The other side to NAIS is the burden to farmers and the rest of the food industry. Can you imagine the cost to a farmer of microchipping 100,000 chickens a month! How many employees will the farmer have to hire? How many fines will farmers face for microchips that come out? How many people will the trucking companies and slaughterhouses have to employ to scan a few million chickens a day for microchips?

Maybe it will be a $7.50 chicken, if we’re lucky.

“What’s for supper, Honey?”

“Two chicken McNuggets and beans, Sweetheart.”

That’s the plan.

NAIS will be applied first to cattle, hogs and poultry, but also to horses. A person who owns a couple of pleasure horses would have to report to the federal computer anytime they take a ride off of their property. Lord help them if they want to travel with their horses!

Many people believe dogs and cats will be next for NAIS.

Another prong in the animal rights plan is to regulate or eliminate what they allege are cruel “factory farming” practices, such as raising hens for egg production in battery cages. Farmers defend these practices, saying that all of the known needs of chickens are being met, and also that these methods keep the cost of food reasonable so that poor and working class people can afford to have better diets.

But the farmers lost a big battle last month with the overwhelming voter approval of Proposition 2 in California. Following this referendum, almost every egg farm in California will be put out of business.

Only free range chickens, or chickens kept in traditional henhouses, will be permissible. Expect the cost of a dozen eggs to jump to $3 or so. Make it $4 when you factor in NAIS, and $5 when you add the cost of “bird flu” insurance.

Don’t worry. You’ll enjoy bean McMuffins.

Look for a law resembling Proposition 2 to become nationwide within the next few years.

Of course, you can’t have a law without also having cops to enforce it. Every one of these programs will open up every farm in America to unannounced inspections, visits by animal cruelty officers and even vigilante spies from animal rights groups.

How much money will farmers have to spend on attorney fees, paying fines for technical violations (the chicken that lost its microchip), or rebuilding facilities, upgrading computer systems and hiring new employees?

How many farmers will say “enough is enough” and throw in the towel?

How many people will be able to afford to buy milk at $8 a gallon, eggs at $5 a dozen, steaks at $20 a pounds, hamburger at $10 or sausage at $12?

We saw the same thing happen in a different form this year, when HSUS exposed cruelty at a California slaughterhouse. A video showed a downer cow being pushed with a loader.

The firestorm of protest over that incident brought a host of new federal regulations and increased inspections of slaughterhouses, even though the incident was a clear violation of existing laws and regulations. The problem could have been solved easily and simply, but it wasn’t.

Instead, your steak went up another 50-cents a pound.

Dollars and cents is the most effective strategy the animal rights groups have discovered. Who cares if you want to eat meat if you can’t afford it!

Your choices become a moot point.

No matter where you look, activists and social reformers want to use money to limit your choices.

Environmentalists want gasoline to cost $20 a gallon, so you’ll use less of it.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) wants a hamburger to cost $15 at McDonalds, so that you’ll eat your veggie burgers and shut up.

They want gasoline to be expensive, because this will drive up the price of corn used for animal feed and fuel to transport all of America’s foodstuffs, and thus the price of meat for consumers. If gasoline rises to $10 a gallon, you won’t be eating much meat.

HSUS wants to make you pay a few thousand dollars for liability insurance to own a gun, so that you won’t be able to afford to go hunting. Thus, hunting can be eliminated without any politician ever having to cast a vote to do it.

And they also want the price of a puppy to be about $5,000, so that only rich people will be able to afford one and the vast majority of Americans will forget what it is like to love and be loved by a dog.

Wars have been won without ever firing a shot.

And the animal rights war will be won in your pocketbook, if you don’t wise up.

Friday, August 22, 2008

AB 1634 is dying, and shelter programs will likely benefit

The California legislation that would have required mandatory spay or neuter of nearly all dogs and cats in the state is dying in the state legislature due to lack of support. The sponsor, Democrat assemblyman Lloyd Levine (Dem - Van Nuys) has almost zero chance to round up enough votes to get it passed this session - especially given the current (recurrent) budget crisis that is demanding the legislature's closing days. And 'ol Lloyd is termed out and will not be back next session.

Why is this good news for animals, shelters, and animal control officers?

I have been reading a communique from the American Sporting Dog Alliance that, among other things had the following report on the impact of the recent mandatory spay and neuter law in the City of Los Angeles...

The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance this year that mandates spaying and neutering of virtually all dogs. In theory, the ordinance allows for owners of intact dogs used for show, performance events or breeding to buy expensive special licenses, provided they work through an approved registry. Thus far, no dog registry, including the American Kennel Club, has been approved.

The ordinance is supposed to take effect October 1 but animal control revenues have already plunged, an August 19 audit by City Controller Laura Chick shows.

According to the audit report, license sales and revenues have dropped substantially and the program’s budget is drenched in red ink.

Chick’s fiscal audit found the Los Angeles Animal Services Department has lost “millions of dollars” in revenue by failing to license and renew the licenses of hundreds of thousands of dogs.

A reported 27 animal control officers will have to be laid off, the city doesn’t have the money to open a new $14 million satellite shelter, there has been no money to pay for any of the required community outreach and no money is available to enforce the new ordinance

"If you don't put something behind (the ordinance), then it's a feel-good gesture, and we don't want to be a city that does empty feel-good gestures," City Controller Chick said. "I always think that legislators should research, not only the outcomes and impacts ... but should always research and ask questions about enforcement. Otherwise we, government, run the danger of enacting legislation that is not going to be enforced, which to me is the clearest of messages to our citizenry and our public -- go ahead and be a scofflaw, nothing's going to happen."

Los Angeles also has stalled on a plan to create satellite centers for spay and neuter procedures, as veterinarians simply aren’t signing up to do the job, the audit shows.

It is indeed sad that a shelter program with the potential to save thousands of animals is so thoroughly mismanaged and that politicians stand ready to apply 'feel good' good solutions to problems that are not only based on bad information and unproven methods, but actually obstruct the ability to deal with the problem. 

The HSUS spent a lot of time and money in California to shape, promote and support AB1634 and its local offspring. These have all failed - either to become law, or, in the case of Los Angeles, to demonstrate that mandatory spay and neuter has any viability as a population control measure. And we now have a clear demonstration of how big a disaster municipal animal control operations have been spared statewide. 

Friday, July 18, 2008

A plea to defeat AB 1634

I swiped this - with the best of intentions - from Steve Bodio's blog. A plea for help to defeat California's proposed mandatory spay and neuter legislation, AB 1634...