Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
nmleon: The idea that regulations must pass scientific and evidential scrutiny to be implemented is almost laughable.
Respectfully, nowhere have I stated that “regulations must pass scientific and evidential scrutiny” and to misconstrue such is demonstrative of viewing the issues with imbalance! Because
it is the ENFORCEMENT of some regulatory statutes that must be supported by science (ie., EIS: Environmental Impact Statements), NOT necessarily the creation of those restraints. Now if I stated something to lead you to believe otherwise, please point it out so that I might clear up where you got those notions?
Moreover
in order to restrict dogs from public lands on the basis of eco-harm, a study for that specific ecosystem MUST be done to support claimed environmental impacts.
Oh the ‘give `um an inch, they’ll take a mile’ argument? That would be an inaccurate assessment, because (as I’ve stated before)
in order to ban dog hunting environmental impact studies would be required;
Sorry if I "misconstrued" your intended point, but "restrict" and "ban" seem pretty clearly to refer to the
passage of regulations and laws, not to their
enforcement. In fact a search shows that you have used the word "enforcement" exactly twice since you've been here. Once in your last post (copied above) and once in the sentence "That is why we depend on law enforcement, to curtail activities that have a negative affect on society as a whole."
Your position now seems to be that the authorities won't
enforce the law without an EIS or some other scientific basis? I sincerely hope that you misspoke or that I have misconstrued your position. The idea that law enforcement authorities would commonly choose to be criminals, or that we should depend on them choosing to be criminals is more than just a little scary, even when I happen to disagree with the particular law.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
We have far too many examples of regulations that make no scientific sense whatsoever...
Great, see above?
mikegranger: Science seems to be have no bearing whatsoever in many of our game laws.
Really? Come on, Mike, I presume being an intelligent man you know better than that. For instance if deer were somehow put on the Endangered Species List, science would have EVERYTHING to do with that. And Fish & Game (state and federal) would ENFORCE the ESA federal statute. Or were you driving at another point I missed?
I thought Mike not only made his point, but gave an example illustrating it. Did you miss that part?
Surely (again) you don't maintain that regulations and laws without sound scientific basis aren't passed or enforced? Go try to buy DDT or Freon 12 or gasoline without MTBE. Do you really think the new emissions requirements Governor Schwarzenegger just signed to alleviate "Global Warming" (scuse me while I try to stop laughing) won't be enforced?
Here in AZ it's perfectly legal to hunt raccoons (and skunk I think) at night with lights, but it's
illegal to hunt coyotes doing the same. I can assure you that law is enforced, but what would be the rationale (much less scientific) reasoning for the disparity in the law?
What is the
scientific rational for the banning of trapping in so many states? Those laws are certainly enforced. How about the OR restrictions that say Duane can't run hounds
on his own land? Explain if you will the
scientific justification for that.
Want a
truly ridiculous example of a law that is
strictly enforced? Try to import a
taxidermied mongoose into the continental U.S. It makes sense to ban the import of live animals, especially considering the damage they did to the poultry industry in the south, but a
stuffed animal? It may make no rational sense at all but I can assure you from personal experience that it is
strictly enforced.
For that matter look at the results of regulations that were implemented
with (supposed) scientific backing. Remember the Clinton forest plans passed by the knuckleheads in D.C. at the behest of the enviro-whackos (with an EIS) over the objections of virtually all of the local forest managers? Remember the (predictable and predicted) fires that resulted
because the regs were enforced even though the local enforcement authorities disagreed with them? That one is
still bouncing around in the courts.
Whether State or Federal, I don't type fast enough to be able to cite even a tiny percentage of the laws and regulations that have been passed and implemented (and are enforced) with no scientific basis at all, or that are based on controversial or purely junk science. It would take me years to do so, and anybody with even a modicum of awareness can cite numerous examples themselves.
The assertion that only regs and laws with sound science behind them would be passed or enforced is flatly ridiculous. The contrary examples are literally too numerous to enumerate.
Quote:
Well, the brew ha ha over “old-growth” isn’t limited to California I assure you, it pertains to the Pacific Northwest Regions. And the Spotted Owl issue may be a legitimate one in context with compliance of the Endangered Species Act.
The Forest Service has long held that cutting “old-growth” (as requested by logging interests) is a beneficial act to the forest, but because of the Spotted Owl habitat in some of those locations? The Forest Service was restrained from permitting cuts in those areas, due to the obvious threat (based on the scientific studies) which back-up the ESA claims.
And though the enforcement authorities disagreed, they were
required to enforce the regulations. Those regulations were "(based on the scientific studies) which back-up the ESA claims", though genetically the three "sub species" are actually the same species (they interbreed with viable offspring) and neither the Mexican or the CA spotted owl require old growth forest for survival. Of course the stes of CA and OR made differing regulations, the USFS still others, the BLM others, with the courts (several, state and federal) getting into the act to impose their own actions.
Which is why I asked the (still unanswered) question "Explain to me if you can how the plethora of conflicting laws, regulations, and court mandated actions, can all be based on a solid scientific basis."
Quote:
Surely you’re not going to suggest that a creditable argument (scientifically based or not) could be made by "Bunny Huggers" that coyotes, wild pig, deer and other dog hunted species are endangered? (If so, then you’ve no inkling as to the hoops required to get an animal on the ES list.) In the 34 years since engagement of ESA, no widely hunted animals have been classified as endangered. Why? Well one reason might be Fish & Game’s regulatory practices, that keep stocks reasonable.
First, getting an animal on the ES is as much a political exercise as a scientific one (witness the spotted owl), but more importantly the ESA isn't the only tool available to the enviro-whackos/bunny huggers. No animals were put on the ES in order to ban trapping or to restrict Duane from running hounds on his own property.
Quote:
Quote:
When the professionals on the spot (and the public) disagree, they can be overridden and often are. I attended the public hearings in Cheyenne WY on the reintroduction of large predators (wolves), and though both the public and the state wildlife biologists were strongly against it, the Feds implemented the program anyway.
So what? That action apparently has no bearing on using dogs for hunting, and is thus irrelevant to this conversation.
Nonetheless some wolves are on the Endangered Species List so perhaps the effort by the feds in the case you cited, was to encourage numbers growth. I can’t say for certain because you’ve not given enough facts regarding that matter for research.
That was in response to your statement:
Quote:
Your concerns appear to apply under PERSONAL ethics, which have no standing in terms of implementing land management actions; none, zero, zilch, nada. So even if the “Bunny Huggers” pitched-a-fit that ”hunting with dogs is unfair to the dogs?”
Without appropriate studies to support how this practice (using dogs for hunting) negatively affects the subject ecosystem, environmental interests (radical or otherwise) could pitch that fit `till their lattes dried up and it could have no bearing on a land management action. Municipal actions are similar, yet must yield to state and/or federal provisions of law.
Now I know what you (and perhaps others) may be thinking, the “Bunny Huggers” might use existing biological studies to ban dog hunting. Not hardly. The few canine in wilderness related studies available are inconclusive for the most part (C. Sime, 1999, for example), and funding for new studies is slim (actually, nonexistent). Moreover in order to restrict dogs from public lands on the basis of eco-harm, a study for that specific ecosystem MUST be done to support claimed environmental impacts.
And:
Quote:
Succinctly I believe to infuse dog fighting with the aspect of “Bunny Huggers” depriving our freedoms, is being overly cautious. Modern land management (state and federal) is bound by stacks of legislative red tape and among such, is the requirement to support its positions with scientific (biological) studies. Another is to provide the public with an opportunity to be heard for or against a land management action, BEFORE it is engaged.
As we have all seen regulations
DO NOT need to be based on good science or any science at all. We have also seen examples (as cited) where the professionals and public disagreed with an action but were overridden. Since the HSUS, PETA, et.al., are against hunting of all types and their acknowledged tactics are to
incrementally accomplish that end, and since they have had some success with those tactics in the past (trapping for one),
it is completely relevant to the discussion at hand.
I'm a little surprised that you aren't intimately familiar with the reintroduction since it is probably the largest and most controversial (and continuing) issue falling within the purview of your claimed field of expertise in a long time. It was (and still is) probably a controversy as large as the spotted owl mess, and has been going on for almost two decades. It has just recently been in the national news referencing the lawsuits against the Feds by MT, ID, and WY.
The wolves were introduced (reintroduced) from a population of ZERO. There were no wild wolves and hadn't been any for decades...zero, zilch, nada. Google "wolves, Yellowstone", follow where it leads and read for days (or weeks).
Quote:
Quote:
Mankind has taken pleasure in watching "blood sports" for thousands of years and continues to do so legally today around the world without "anarchy and civil disorder", so that argument is fallacious on it's face. Roman Caesars spent vast fortunes in animal vs animal, animal vs men, and men vs men (gladiatorial) spectacles expressly to maintain civil order.
No the reality of keeping the peace though civil laws is not an erroneous one, and to suggest otherwise simply evades the subject issue.
Well no, that was in response to:
Quote:
Allowing two domestic dogs to fight, simply to see which prevails is cruel; it serves no legitimate purpose, does not raise the spirit of man, and promotes a number of ancillary crimes. These aspects have an affect on the whole of society, making them everyone’s business. That is why we depend on law enforcement, to curtail activities that have a negative affect on society as a whole. Otherwise we have anarchy and civil disorder, so yeah; the Feds have a right and purpose for stepping in.
Your statement refers specifically to dog fighting claiming it "promotes" crime and that the feds have "have a right and a purpose for stepping in" based on that to prevent "anarchy and civil disorder". That IS integral to the subject issue, and is a demonstrably erroneous assumption since (as I pointed out) where dog fighting (and other blood sports) are legal, anarchy and civil disorder do not follow.
Quote:
But as to your argument... 500 years ago many sure men pounded fist to tables, insisting the world was flat! 150 years ago battlefield surgeons were unaware of microscopic elements affecting patients, thus seldom washing their hands of blood before moving to the next casualty. 75 years ago mach air travel was the stuff of Jules Verne. 60 years ago some city ordinances prohibited American Indians from drinking liquor in a bar, while they were dying for this country in WW-II under the FIRM BELIEF alcohol made them insane. And just a short 23 years ago, 10 megabyte computer hard drives were thought to be the limit of data storage capabilities.
Today we know different things that cause different action and results.
Yet what you’re purporting above is that 4,000+ year methods of conduct supersede today’s discoveries in advanced canine behavioral knowledge, and that man should not change because of traditions. Respectfully, that line of thought is nothing more than justification for a weak position that “dog fighting” in a ring should be protected conduct. And all because the ’it could happen to us too’ mindset prevails over reason and knowing one’s subject matter.
So I take it your position that:
"Allowing two domestic dogs to fight, simply to see which prevails is cruel;" is based on "discoveries in advanced canine behavioral knowledge" (science)? Please enlighten us. Did I miss the announcement of the "discovery" that aggression among canines is an unnatural occurrence? Is there scientific evidence that dogs
DON'T fight each other when left to their own devices? Has science determined that allowing dogs to fight each other is "cruel"? If so then I will plead guilty to a false justification and even to a mindset that "prevails over reason and knowing one’s subject matter".
If not, then your opinion stated as fact (i.e. "a given") is a moral stance and
IS NOT based in science and your references to technological and scientific advances then become irrelevant (and a smoke screen). The question of why
you believe (along with the HSUS) that the morality of thousands of years of human history, the morality of the majority of the people who have ever lived, and indeed the morality of the majority of the world's population today should be ignored, does become relevant.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
The "incrementalism" argument IS valid. We have seen it work in far too many cases to believe otherwise.
I NEVER stated it wasn’t valid, please reread my words again stated in context with Bopeye’s cite of the HSUS article. Perhaps you didn’t mean to take what I stated out of context? Yet I ask myself how much more clear can “I’m not saying your viewpoint is invalid” be???? Did you even bother to read and digest what I wrote?
Oh the ‘give `um an inch, they’ll take a mile’ argument? (incrementalism)
That would be an inaccurate assessment, because (as I’ve stated before) in order to ban dog hunting environmental impact studies would be required;
You are of course correct. You never stated it "wasn't valid", you stated
"That would be an inaccurate assessment". Hmmm, maybe I need a different dictionary and thesaurus.
Quote:
Quote:
Facts? Clear statement of position? How about these statements of what the HSUS opposes (among many others including bear baiting and contest hunting) from their web page?
Here once again you’ve taken what I stated out of context, misconstruing the sentiment. I was not claiming that HSUS has never made a statement of position against hunting activities, I stated (pretty clearly I thought) that in relation to the article Bopeye referenced it did not.
You said:
Quote:
Please don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying your viewpoint is invalid only that such needs to be tempered with FACTS -- not speculation. Whereas to extrapolate that HSUS is taking a position against hunting with dogs, simply because hunting with dogs is pointed out foundationally in a writing dealing with dog hogging IN A RING?
Well, that’s speculation lacking a clear statement of position to back the notion.
I gave you the facts and a "clear statement of position" from HSUS's own web-site showing Bopeye's supposed "extrapolation" to be accurate FACT.
Quote:
Now what you’ve done Mr./Mrs. Nmleon, by misconstruing the context of my statements, makes it appear as though I am promoting a soft on “Bunny Hugger” stand. That is simply not the case, albeit what I am suggesting is that more balance be applied to related arguments.
Your statements are what makes it seem that you are, if not exactly "promoting a soft stance on a Bunny Hugger stand", at least discounting the danger they pose to hunters in general and hound hunters in particular, contrary to historical evidence and to the stated positions and tactics of HSUS (and others). I suspect your statements are also what has given that impression to not only with me, but others who have commented in this thread as well.
That impression might be the result of statements such as:
"Allowing two domestic dogs to fight, simply to see which prevails is cruel; it serves no legitimate purpose, does not raise the spirit of man, and promotes a number of ancillary crimes." (almost exactly the position of HSUS)
"Be watchful of our government, certainly, but overly concerned our canine pursuits are next on some liberal agenda? I (speaking personally) wouldn’t give them that much acknowledgment, not to mention more than a fleeting thought of the slimmest chance such aims would succeed!" (even though they HAVE succeeded already in restricting trapping, hound hunting, etc, in some areas)
"That said I believe where we differ in viewpoint on this subject, ever so slightly, is at the identification of opposing interests and level of threat those actually pose against our freedoms -- using dogs for hunting." (in spite of past successes at influencing regulations against us and a stated position that one of the items on their "ban agenda" is the use of dogs for hunting)
"Succinctly I believe to infuse dog fighting with the aspect of “Bunny Huggers” depriving our freedoms, is being overly cautious."(and yet their justification for the opposition of each is identical (and the same as yours), "it's cruel"
"Your concerns appear to apply under PERSONAL ethics, which have no standing in terms of implementing land management actions; none, zero, zilch, nada. So even if the “Bunny Huggers” pitched-a-fit that ”hunting with dogs is unfair to the dogs?” Without appropriate studies to support how this practice (using dogs for hunting) negatively affects the subject ecosystem, environmental interests (radical or otherwise) could pitch that fit `till their lattes dried up and it could have no bearing on a land management action. Municipal actions are similar, yet must yield to state and/or federal provisions of law." (and yet concrete examples have been given (and many more could be) showing that regulations and laws DO NOT depend on scientific evidence)
"No big deal that the HSUS article, mentions the two types of dog hunting camps: bay & catch dogs. HSUS has not taken a position against hunting with dogs, only against using dogs in the confines of a ring against disarmed pigs. In fact the article expressly cites Louisiana Rep. Warren Triche’s introduction and passing of a 2004 bill to ban hog dog fighting in that state, “excluding hog hunting” activities. (the ARTICLE may only "mention" two types of dog hunting camps, but the HSUS's stated position (as cited) is against it in any form.
"Where is the threat to hunting interests?"
How about right here in their own words:
Quote:
Hunting
As a matter of principle, The HSUS opposes the hunting of any living creature for fun, trophy, or sport because of the animal trauma, suffering, and death that result. A humane society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature in the name of sport. As a practical matter, The HSUS actively seeks to eliminate the most inhumane and unfair sport-hunting practices, such as the use of body-gripping traps, baiting, use of dogs, pigeon shoots, stocking of animals for shooting, and fee-hunting on enclosed properties.
Given the stance of the HSUS et.al., their successes to date in causing regulations and laws to be implemented against some aspects of hunting and trapping, and their stated goal to eliminate ALL sport hunting, it would in my opinion be foolish to allow their challenge to hog rings (or anything else) go unanswered. Their very justification for opposing these things is that they are "cruel" (a purely subjective judgement). Once you allow them to float that argument unchallenged, you have opened the door for the same rationale to be used in other areas.
They have in fact been quite open in stating that their tactics
start with working to gain the support of
hunters for banning practices such as pen slaughter (which isn't hunting at all) so that further encroachments become a smaller step (that would be incrementalism).
Quote:
It is any wonder why radical environmental groups (“Bunny Huggers” and the like) gain much ground against our common interests? They out argue our positions that are many times based on little more than, a claim to right without support.
In my opinion you have it backwards. Most often the enviro-whacko/bunny huggers win not by rational debate, but by an appeal to the emotions of the ignorant and gullible public. They have decisively LOST every
debate I can think of between them and us. I believe the most recent (that I remember) was between La Pierre and someone from PETA. After the debate the callers rated the NRA hunter position as winning (I believe) by 70 to 24%. That is pretty normal.
It's the enviro-whacko/bunny huggers who usually resort to crass emotionalism with unsupported statements like "A
humane society should not condone the killing of any sentient creature in the name of sport." "The
indiscriminate killing of predatory animals by poisoning, trapping, shooting from aircraft, killing young at their dens, and other
inhumane methods is unacceptable. The HSUS accordingly opposes the
cruel techniques used in the present program and encourages the use of non-lethal means of protecting livestock from predators,..." etc etc. (All statement from their web-site)
Letting them win in one area, compromise, choosing the fight, whatever term you care to use is a tactic that has proven to be ineffective in the past. Giving ground only lets them get further down their chosen road.
Bopeye is exactly right. Compromise with someone who is trying to take your rights away isn't compromise, it's submission, and it leads to defeat.
YOU may advocate letting them be, and that is of course your right, but I doubt you'll find much support here for bowing down to HSUS or PETA in
any circumstance, certainly not from ME at any rate.
