So welcome to the world where you present your facts and your opinion and that is all you need to know. I suspect that the majority of people have always been this way, but it wasn't as easy to share your opinion and just the facts that support your opinion and ignore the rest of the facts and opinions. We've become a world of one liners and limits to what we are explaining via Twitter and FB. If you disagree with someone you not only have to explain your opinion, but why you disagree and provide the facts that they have left out that might make another person think differently than they do. This is more than most people are willing to read anymore. In addition, it's become very easy to just delete other people's ideas, views and other facts. Add in the fake facts, and well, none of us know what to believe anymore. Being neutral, even when we have an opinion, isn't easy for anyone, but we expected journalists to do so in the past--and with some irony, they actually did. Propaganda was part of organizations trying to perpetuate their opinions of the facts and news was the facts that we could use to decide for ourselves. Now even the news is skewed to those opinions of those giving us the "news". So it is no surprise that a recent bill approved in the House of Representatives is a bill being purported by a video being shared online as allowing bears to be killed in hibernation. So, when I saw it, I have to admit I was absolutely mortified. It tugs the heart strings showing mama bear and cubs and says that it is dialing back a law that was passed by the Obama Administration. But if you know me, I have always questioned my own knee jerk reactions and the first thing that made me question anything is that during the Obama Administration the Democrats never controlled both the House and Senate. That screams that "Republicans" voted for this also. So what? Well, to me that means this needs more than my knee jerk reaction to a video.
First, you can read this blog without knowing the video I'm talking about, but here's the link for those that want to have my same knee jerk reaction:
LINK TO Video Shared on FB that blog references
Okay, if you've watched it, you most likely had the same knee jerk reaction that I did. WTF?!?! But like I stated in the opening paragraph, there's always at least one other view of the facts and also that view usually has more facts. So, why would this case be any different?
So first, the "facts" that we already know from the video. There is a bill. The bill is HJ Res 69 (House Joint Resolution 69). Yes, it did pass the House on 22 March 2017, just this past Wednesday. It is in opposition to a Department of the Interior rule that was submitted, approved on 5 August 2016 and has been enforced since 6 September 2016. Next, it identifies that SJ Res 18 (Senate Joint Resolution 18) has already passed since it insinuates that it has passed Congress, but to contact your Senators if you are opposed to the bill. This is a contradiction since NO it hasn't passed the Senate, and thus why it's asking you to contact your Senator. Finally, of course, the knee jerk stuff...is it trying to reverse preventing of what most of us think is a piss poor excuse of hunting? Is it on wildlife preserves and refuges? Is it allowing hunting of hibernating animals? Is it allowing the killing of baby bear cubs? Yes and no.
See that's where they get us, right? The yes is where they stop. They got the right reaction out of most of us and that's the point, right? I don't think so. So as usual, I had to check and see what the hell, especially since my own knee jerk reaction was "oh hell no!!"
Facts:
1. It only addresses Federal lands in ALASKA. That's right. We're not talking about any other land in the USA. That might lose some of you right there. Doesn't affect you although I would argue it does affect you because what we allow to happen in one place allows it to be allowed elsewhere that much easier.
2. The DOI rule, 81 Fed. Reg. 52247, is to address how a state rule in Alaska on hunting will affect Federal lands. That's right. The state of Alaska's Board of Game, part of Alaska's Department of Fish and Game, passed a rule that allows certain hunting tactics that the DOI rule addresses on Federal lands in Alaska. Since the Federal government owns over 260M acres of land in Alaska that are hunted legally, this rule that Alaska's BOG passed affects the lands in Alaska owned by the Feds. This is complicated since most of us think of Federal land as autonomous compared to the states that the lands are held. However, by saying nothing, the Federal government allows the state laws to governed within these states where no Federal mandate states otherwise. To put it simply, if the Federal government has no rule to govern what the state hunting rules say, the state rules apply.
3. The Alaska BOG rule is not law. It's a rule, so it was addressed by a DOI rule. So only a law can cancel a rule. That's right. When so many of you say you don't care about who is nominated and approved to the President's Cabinet, you need to remember these Cabinet members make the rules you and I have to live by. The DOI rule therefore has to have a law to cancel it unless the DOI decides to cancel it themselves, and apparently the DOI isn't going to do it. That's why this is a bill in front of Congress in the first place.
Okay, so what? Well, you need to understand this above crap to understand how it applies to you and others and decide how important it is to you. But now to the knee jerk stuff, the meat and potatoes:
4. The Alaska BOG rule allows:
i. The killing of mother bears, black and brown, even if they have cubs.
ii. Using bait to attract brown bears (non-subsistence hunting).
iii. Using snares and traps for hunting (non-subsistence hunting).
iv. Killing wolves and coyotes during denning season.
v. Killing bears from the air, typically from an aircraft.
It does NOT allow killing of bears in hibernation. Wolves and coyotes are already legally hunted by air because of how large the populations can become in a short time. Subsistence hunting, ie. the hunting that the Eskimo population uses of some bears, is still allowed.
5. The DOI rule only addresses the BOG rule on Federal lands already legal to hunt in Alaska.
Other considerations:
Coyotes have spread nationwide because their populations grow quickly. Many states have had problems because coyotes have very large litters and the populations can get out of control quickly. Most states though have more issues with wild dogs--domestic breeds living feral--than with coyotes. However, many farmers in the USA suffer losses due to wolf packs and coyotes. These numbers, the deaths resulting from packs are probably underestimated because killing of coyotes and wolves are restricted in most states by hunting times. It's a flip of the coin whether some farmers will report killing a wolf or coyote to protect their herds. It's kind of like you or I killing a deer on the road. You didn't mean to, but you and I won't go to jail because it's not hunting season. It's the farmer's word against the dead wolf/coyote if it's not hunting season. Depending upon local law and gaming enforcement, well, it might be the dead animal's word over all else.
If you are outraged by the Alaska BOG rule, there's nothing you can do about it unless you are an Alaskan. I mean you can protest. I live in South Carolina. I'm pissed about non-subsistence hunting in general. I think if you kill a deer during hunting season you should have it processed and if you aren't going to eat it, then give it to friends that will. But no one, well almost no one, is eating wolves or coyotes. We like to think, at least those of us that know hunters, that responsible hunters wouldn't hunt for anything other than subsistence. People do eat bears. But note that this rule in Alaska allows non-subsistence hunting of bears. These people that do this, well, I don't know. I just can't imagine but I do know people that do hunt just to hunt. I like to think most trophy hunters are barbarians who have no sense of pride and dignity. Yet, most that hunt coyote and wolves legally are doing so for trophies--even during hunting seasons. Whether I want to admit it or not, there's legal hunting of these animals because their populations have the ability to outgrow the human population of an area if not controlled. Hunting seasons allow this. These seasons don't usually overlap denning seasons and procreation seasons. In some cases, they do though if the population is too large and needs to be brought down. I feel sorry for those state and federal gaming employees that can be taxed with bringing these populations down because the hunting isn't working--and yes, that has happened. I'm not happy with Alaska's BOG rule, but it is Alaska. There's a lot of wild tundra there--plenty for a population to get out of control
Also, on that note, Alaska is its own state. That which is not Federal law can be ruled and governed by the state. But, Federal land there should be governed by the conscious of our country as a whole. The USA owned land should follow the consciences of the USA as a whole. The state lands, well, while I don't like what the BOG there is allowing, I don't live there and I'm loathe to tell them what their wildlife population looks like. I don't know. I suppose if I lived there and it was obvious that the population was getting too large, I might have a different view. But I don't live there and therefore, I'm only considering the land that is part of my tax money--the Federal lands.
My recommendation is call your Senators. Stop this before we allow Alaska to rule our Federal land. Somehow this rule got passed there, and maybe even for good reason. But I don't want Federal lands turned into trophy hunters' playgrounds. Alaska owns plenty of their own land for that.
No comments:
Post a Comment