A.F. Branco is a GrassRoots Conservative Political Cartoonist for Conservative Daily News, Net Right Daily, Legal Insurrection, and now Ammoland Shooting Sports News. Share this page and help spread our pro gun, conservative message with humor.
USA-(Ammoland.com)- Divisiveness will be the downfall of the outdoors heritage.
Animal-rights organizations prey upon differences of opinion in our ranks, and use it to justify their legislation, court arguments and ballot initiatives. Their sway with non-hunting voters only increases when we repeat similar statements and narrow-minded opinions.
With that said, here are the top-three most absurd statements, arguments and stances from hunters, non-hunters and anti-hunters.
“Endangered” Animals
Hunting endangered animals seems like a no brainer – everyone should agree. But what constitutes “endangered”? Certainly, listing under the protections of the Endangered Species Act would be the easiest indicator. Or would it?
Animal-rights groups love to invoke emotional words such as “endangered,” “iconic,” “extinction” and “vulnerable” (usually in conjunction with equally emotional words such as slaughter, senseless and trophy), while resisting actions to remove any game animal from listing (notice they don’t fight removal of non-game animals whose populations reach delisting thresholds). This holds true for animals overseas such as lions and leopards, as well as domestic animals such as wolves and grizzly bears.
What we can do: When it comes to apex predators and removal from an endangered listing, even some hunters hesitate to advocate for management that includes hunting. That’s a mistake hunters should resist with science. Population management takes place at a very local level, and harvest goals are tallied with overall populations, birth and natural mortality rates.
Sportsmen should advocate for the removal of recovered domestic species from the endangered species list, while also supporting regulated hunting of species with monitoring of population levels as required by law.
In foreign countries, regulated hunting of threatened species is often the best, sometimes only, means to fund conservation, protection and enforcement programs, such as habitat and population studies, fences for preserves, anti-poaching teams and prosecution.
Two examples that the Sportsmen’s Alliance are involved in: delisting of Greater Yellowstone grizzly bears; the population has been above delisting standards by more than 25 percent for twice as long as necessary. Additionally, Great Lakes wolves have far surpassed population thresholds for delisting (as high as 12 fold), and it’s been a decade-long legal battle that still rages today.
The ruling and idea that these populations are endangered in these specific areas is ridiculous. It’s akin to saying pheasant hunting shouldn’t take place in South Dakota because the birds aren’t plentiful enough in South Carolina, or that halibut fishing shouldn’t take place in Alaska because Florida doesn’t have any.
2. “Trophy” Hunting
The catch-all phrase for conveying a totality of evil in the outdoors, “trophy hunting” has become the animal-rights movement’s go-to descriptor to stop everything from lion hunting in Africa to black bear hunting in Kentucky. The media echoes the use of trophy to paint any hunting as nothing more than a pursuit of heads, horns and hides. As planned, non-hunters are almost immediately swayed to stand against whatever act the words were uttered against.
What’s worse, however, is that many hunters use the same logic, and apply it to everything from predator to deer hunting. Whether it’s simply justification for taking younger/smaller animals or it makes them feel somehow ethically superior is hard to say. But the effect is the same: there are two classes of hunters, and only one has the moral high ground. And that’s a very dangerous position for anyone in the outdoors to take.
What we can do: Stop using the term “trophy hunting” to denote a choice to hunt different specimens of any given species. A trophy is in the eye of the beholder; a person’s first animal (which is usually small game, a bird or female or young big game) is as memorable to them as another’s record-book animal.
Further, the connotation that just because an animal is mature and has desirable qualities (large antlers, long beards or beautiful plumage) that it is somehow undesirable or inferior to eat is a fallacy. They’re not mutually exclusive concepts – an animal can be, and typically is, both a mature “trophy” and a great dinner.
3. Killing Only to Eat
Animal-rights organizations know they lose the moral high ground when they condemn nutrition-deficient populations for hunting, such as the poor or subsistence hunters. But somehow the idea of consumption has become the default for acceptable hunting by everyone – including some hunters.
The idea that it’s only acceptable to kill an animal if you eat it is the most idiotic statement made by hunters. It plays into the hands of the animal-rights crowd by, once again, dividing hunters and undermining wildlife management.
What we can do: Stop espousing consumption as the only moral high ground for hunting, and instead promote the fact that hunting itself is the moral high ground that keeps a healthy balance in nature and funds conservation. Hunting is a tool used by biologists to balance populations of predators and prey with the available habitats within an area.
Hunting of animals not suitable for eating maintains an acceptable balance within limited habitats. The idea that consumption must take place ignores the facts that some species negatively impact habitats, carry disease or are undesirable table fare (but still must be removed from the equation) – beavers, raccoons, opossums, prairie dogs and coyotes are but a few examples. About the Sportsmen’s Alliance:
The Sportsmen’s Alliance protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible.
oon after Doug invited me to
write a few words on Independence Day, I spent half a day assembling the
ingredients for the ritual feast of the Glorious Fourth. As I was cruising
the overflowing bounty of food we are lucky to enjoy for just the right
comestibles, I was also ruminating on what I wanted to say about the founding
of this country that I love.
Our Founders, of disparate faiths, backgrounds, professions and political
beliefs, managed to create what I believe was a political miracle--a
revolution that actually worked and one that has served its citizens so well
that the result became the greatest engine for human good in all of history.
There had never been, and still has not been, any revolution greater than the
concept of limited governance and that of the sovereignty of the individual
over the state.
Others may have had the ideas, but the founders, the signers of what is
arguably the greatest single political document of all history, got the
details ever so right. Other great men created revolutions in other places
that have tried to emulate the miracle of the Declaration and The Constitution
and some have come close. Still, I think they always have fallen a bit short,
or too often, very short. My own great, great grandfather found it necessary
to exit Germany in a very great hurry for attempting to create there what had
been accomplished just a few decades earlier here. It got very close a couple
of centuries later.
The idea of The United States, the concept of American Exceptionalism, of the
people's sovereignty, is embodied in this incredible document that we
celebrate today. It is also wonderfully impressive that it is such a short
and easy read, this guiding light for our freedoms.
So, between the first burger and the first few deviled eggs and the last hot
dog and the last beer, give a thought or two and a modicum of thanks to the
people and the truths that the Founders held self evident, and the ideas that
launched this Grand Engine that we call America.
Ethan Becker
Knife Rights Board of Directors
Becker Knife & Tool®
Joy of Cooking®
OUTDOOR NEWS: Join NRA-ILA and your NRA state
association, Wisconsin Firearm Owners, on Monday July 10th, fro 6:30
pm to 7:30pm at Cabela’s in Green Bay are for FREE meeting about your Second
Amendment Rights! This is your chance to get involved and get educated about
the pending Right -To- Carry Bill. Doesn’t miss out on this opportunity! This
is a FREE event-materials will be provided and light refreshments will be
served. Cabela’s is located at: 1499 Lombardi Ave., Ashwaubenon, WI
54304 and mark your calendars for July 10th Monday, from 6:30
pm to 7:30 pm. SPACE IS LIMITED, SO PLEASE BE SURE TO RSVP AS ON AS
POSSIBLE! Contact Suzanne at: suzanne@nrailafrontlines.com
to sign up. See you there. You can also use the following address: http://www.nrailafrontlines.com/nra_meeting_cabelas_greenbay?recruiter_id=37502.
We
get a lot of calls in the late summer/early fall from guys wanting to plant
something for their ducks. Generally speaking, it’s too late in the year when
they think about it to grow what the ducks need for food…seed. BioLogics Guide’s Choice is possibly the most advanced waterfowl
planting ever. This proven waterfowl seed mix includes Japanese Millet and
Sorghum. With a little know-how you can be on your way to a more successful
duck hunting experience.
When should I plant duck food plots?
Now
is the time to get something planted if you want to have an attractive food
source for waterfowl. Most all varieties of plants used for seed production
need at least 60-90 days of warm growing weather to mature and produce seed.
what is the best waterfowl seed mix?
Guide’s
Choice is a really easy to grow blend for the duck hunter and waterfowl
fanatic. This mix is designed for seed production and durable stalks that will
stand up in a water environment.
Where should I plant duck food
Guide’s
Choice can be planted on ground that is in a water controlled impoundment or in
areas that naturally flood once fall and winter rains come.
How to plant waterfowl seed mix?
Guide’s
Choice can be drilled or broadcast at a rate of 20 lbs per acre. If the area
you are planning to plant is too wet to be disced or drilled, Guide’s Choice
can be broadcast onto moist ground as long as it is not standing water. In the
case where it is only broadcasted onto moist soil, a cultipacker or drag should
be used to ensure good seed to soil contact.
Should I fertilize my waterfowl food
plots?
Fertilization
recommendations would be 400lbs per acre of BioLogic pH fertilizer. Guide’s
Choice needs around 70-80 days to mature, a mid June-mid July planting date is
recommended for good seed production.
Many properties in a flyway have potential for creating new duck
holes. Now that you know a little more about the when, what, where and how of
planting duck holes, it’s time to plant your own. Check out our Tips for
creating your own duck hunting hot spot here: Tips for Creating
Your Own Duck Hunting Spot.
Feds Move to Delist Grizzlies – Anti’s Move to Sue
Posted on
After more than four decades, the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears has been deemed recovered by federal wildlife biologists after far surpassing every threshold required by the Endangered Species Act. The success might be short-lived, however, as the delisting action sets the stage for expensive court battles with animal-rights organizations who have already promised to file lawsuits to stop the action as soon as possible.
“The delisting of grizzly bears should be universally celebrated as one of the greatest conservation stories in North America, and successes of the Endangered Species Act,” said Sportsmen’s Alliance President and CEO Evan Heusinkveld. “But, unfortunately, there are groups already fundraising to challenge the decision and usurp biological wildlife management with lawsuits and court mandates.”
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears has surpassed recovery goals in both population benchmarks and duration of time meeting those goals, proving that the population is not just recovered, but stable and growing. Moreover, more than 100 grizzly bears have been killed for depredation of livestock or attacks on humans in the last two years – a significant number indicative of the population having reached social tolerance levels within the available habitat.
Despite those successes, animal-rights groups have circled the wagons and promise to fight an expensive legal battle in the courts.
In a New York Times piece, Matt Bishop, an attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, said: “We have to wait 60 days, but on the 61st day we will sue to stop the delisting.”
The Humane Society of the United States, with an annual budget of $130 million, Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and others all started fundraising on the backs of “endangered” grizzlies the moment the Department of the Interior asked for public comments on delisting. Their agenda-driven propaganda paints the picture of complete extinction by “trophy” hunters should delisting take place, and their obstructionist game plan assures a long and expensive court battle to defend scientific wildlife management.
“Just as with the Western Great Lakes wolf, a case we’ve been fighting for a decade, radical animal-rights organizations are already setting the table for lawsuit after lawsuit to advance their no-hunting, vegan-only agenda on America,” said Heusinkveld.
With a battle imminent, the Sportsmen’s Alliance remains dedicated to protecting hunting, fishing and trapping from the animal-rights movement, but we need the help of every business and individual in the outdoors world to do so. Please help with a contribution today.
About the Sportsmen’s Alliance: The Sportsmen’s Alliance protects and defends America’s wildlife conservation programs and the pursuits – hunting, fishing and trapping – that generate the money to pay for them. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation is responsible for public education, legal defense and research. Its mission is accomplished through several distinct programs coordinated to provide the most complete defense capability possible. Stay connected to Sportsmen’s Alliance: Online, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
Three Completely BS Arguments Made By Anti-Hunters … and Some Hunters
Posted on
Divisiveness will be the downfall of the outdoors heritage.
Animal-rights organizations prey upon differences of opinion in our ranks, and use it to justify their legislation, court arguments and ballot initiatives. Their sway with non-hunting voters only increases when we repeat similar statements and narrow-minded opinions.
With that said, here are the top-three most absurd statements, arguments and stances from hunters, non-hunters and anti-hunters.
#3) “Endangered” Animals
Hunting endangered animals seems like a no brainer – everyone should agree. But what constitutes “endangered”? Certainly, listing under the protections of the Endangered Species Act would be the easiest indicator. Or would it?
Animal-rights groups love to invoke emotional words such as “endangered,” “iconic,” “extinction” and “vulnerable” (usually in conjunction with equally emotional words such as slaughter, senseless and trophy), while resisting actions to remove any game animal from listing (notice they don’t fight removal of non-game animals whose populations reach delisting thresholds). This holds true for animals overseas such as lions and leopards, as well as domestic animals such as wolves and grizzly bears.
What we can do: When it comes to apex predators and removal from an endangered listing, even some hunters hesitate to advocate for management that includes hunting. That’s a mistake hunters should resist with science. Population management takes place at a very local level, and harvest goals are tallied with overall populations, birth and natural mortality rates.
Sportsmen should advocate for the removal of recovered domestic species from the endangered species list, while also supporting regulated hunting of species with monitoring of population levels as required by law.
In foreign countries, regulated hunting of threatened species is often the best, sometimes only, means to fund conservation, protection and enforcement programs, such as habitat and population studies, fences for preserves, anti-poaching teams and prosecution.
Two examples that the Sportsmen’s Alliance are involved in: delisting of Greater Yellowstone grizzly bears; the population has been above delisting standards by more than 25 percent for twice as long as necessary. Additionally, Great Lakes wolves have far surpassed population thresholds for delisting (as high as 12 fold), and it’s been a decade-long legal battle that still rages today. The ruling and idea that these populations are endangered in these specific areas is ridiculous. It’s akin to saying pheasant hunting shouldn’t take place in South Dakota because the birds aren’t plentiful enough in South Carolina, or that halibut fishing shouldn’t take place in Alaska because Florida doesn’t have any.
#2) “Trophy” Hunting
The catch-all phrase for conveying a totality of evil in the outdoors, “trophy hunting” has become the animal-rights movement’s go-to descriptor to stop everything from lion hunting in Africa to black bear hunting in Kentucky. The media echoes the use of trophy to paint any hunting as nothing more than a pursuit of heads, horns and hides. As planned, non-hunters are almost immediately swayed to stand against whatever act the words were uttered against.
What’s worse, however, is that many hunters use the same logic, and apply it to everything from predator to deer hunting. Whether it’s simply justification for taking younger/smaller animals or it makes them feel somehow ethically superior is hard to say. But the effect is the same: there are two classes of hunters, and only one has the moral high ground. And that’s a very dangerous position for anyone in the outdoors to take.
What we can do: Stop using the term “trophy hunting” to denote a choice to hunt different specimens of any given species. A trophy is in the eye of the beholder; a person’s first animal (which is usually small game, a bird or female or young big game) is as memorable to them as another’s record-book animal. Further, the connotation that just because an animal is mature and has desirable qualities (large antlers, long beards or beautiful plumage) that it is somehow undesirable or inferior to eat is a fallacy. They’re not mutually exclusive concepts – an animal can be, and typically is, both a mature “trophy” and a great dinner.
#1) Killing Only to Eat
Animal-rights organizations know they lose the moral high ground when they condemn nutrition-deficient populations for hunting, such as the poor or subsistence hunters. But somehow the idea of consumption has become the default for acceptable hunting by everyone – including some hunters.
The idea that it’s only acceptable to kill an animal if you eat it is the most idiotic statement made by hunters. It plays into the hands of the animal-rights crowd by, once again, dividing hunters and undermining wildlife management.
What we can do: Stop espousing consumption as the only moral high ground for hunting, and instead promote the fact that hunting itself is the moral high ground that keeps a healthy balance in nature and funds conservation. Hunting is a tool used by biologists to balance populations of predators and prey with the available habitats within an area. Hunting of animals not suitable for eating maintains an acceptable balance within limited habitats. The idea that consumption must take place ignores the facts that some species negatively impact habitats, carry disease or are undesirable table fare (but still must be removed from the equation) – beavers, raccoons, opossums, prairie dogs and coyotes are but a few examples.
USA
