A couple of quick rejoinders.
First, it's the possible MINDSET--the anti-government, paranoic,
conspiratist fantasizing mindset that Lanny ably describes--of the person
who takes an assault rifle to go hunting, rather than the weapon itself,
that would concern me if I were a game warden.
Second, non-hunters have proposed excise taxes similar to
Pittman-Robinson, to pay for non-game conservation and land-acquisition
programs; taxes on binoculars, cameras, camping gear, and other
"non-extractive" outdoor equipment and products. I know of at least three
instances, once when I served on the Open Spaces Task Force, and twice
when I was in the legislature, that such a tax was proposed. There were
many supporters. The chief opponents were the NRA and its allies and Farm
Bureau, abetted by some in fish & game at DNR. Their main issue was
CONTROL. They weren't about to cede any of their power or influence to
the birders and bicyclists.
--BW
> Use of assault rifles to hunt deer is a very minor issue. Really, there
> just are not that many of them out there. For those that are, very few
> have a capacity of just 6 shots; most have bigger clips. I would bet
> that the DNR will require the use of special soft point hunting ammo,
> rather than the military, solid, armor piercing type they normally
> shoot. Toying with numbers, I might guess there would be less than 100
> hunters out with those kinds of guns. They are fairly worthless for
> hunting. They make far better guns for hunting.
>
> I have used a shotgun for all my deer hunting in Iowa. It holds five
> rounds and is a semiautomatic shotgun, like the assault rifles that are
> semiautomatic (shoot once each time the trigger is pulled). With some
> of the newer shotgun ammo I can kill deer at 200 yds; although they have
> lower velocity and hit the ground sooner than centerfire rifle bullets.
> Idoubt that the deer cares which he was hit with. I doubt that a game
> warden thinks there is much diffence in approaching me with my 5 very
> rapid shots and someone with a very rapid 6 shot assault rifle. Game
> wardens generally know how to take care of themselves. Really, the use
> of assault weapons on deer is kind of begging the question.
>
> Bill is right to a certain extent about entrenched gov't employees with
> political schemes and muscle. I might come out on the side of
> scientific deer management with scientifically determined carrying
> capacities. But, I realize there are sociopolitical carrying
> capacities. I talked to the head of our DNR deer managment (Willie
> Suchy?) and he said that Wisconsin just has a greater tolerance for high
> deer numbers than do Iowans.
>
> Bill speaks of hunter fantasies with assault weapons. But, we all have
> our fantasies. I might think it idiotic to fantasize about the perfect
> golf club that might allow me to make holes-in-one. But, we worship our
> fantasies. Animal rights people fantasize on how awful it must be for a
> deer to die by being shot with an arrow. In fact, most people that hunt
> with bow and gun report that deer die more quickly and less stressfully
> when shot with an arrow. So, I think, let those very few have their
> fantasies with their assault guns hunting. Tolerance folks.
>
> There certainly is some role for the "special interests" of famers and
> insurers and nature lovers and hunters. The politicians should be
> listening. We do wonder these days if legislatures are totally for sale
> to the richer special interests. What is unique is the very successeful
> role of the special interest of the NRA. Federal and state legislatures
> certainly dance to their tune. I have been waiting for an expose of the
> NRA. Although they have several million dues paying members steeped in
> the view of the government coming to take their guns, there seems to me
> to be more there. My question, do they receive financial support from
> gun and ammo manufacturers such as Remington, Winchester, Browning, etc?
>
> So, wolves would solve our problem or maybe mountain lions? As Bill
> note, people would be outraged. Some back of the envelope
> calculations-- If a wolf or lion kills one deer per week and we want to
> reduce the deer herd by 200,000; we need about 4,000 of them in the
> state to do the job. Talk about the sociopolitical carrying capacity!
>
> The dove hunting controversy of a few years ago was a classic conflict.
> DNR type agencies have always tended to be pro fisherman and hunter.
> Why? Because all the money for virtually all game and nongame wildlife
> comes from those who buy licenses and pay Pittman-Robinson taxes. Let
> those that said we were going to kill the "dove of peace" put up
> millions to promoate their interests, and then they would have a
> legiitmate voice. I bought over $100 in licenses last year in state and
> $550 out of state. I contibute thousands to the economy by my hunting
> and fishing.
> Lanny Schwartz
>
>>
>>
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Join us at Sierra Summit 2005. For information go to:
> http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
> e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
> latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
> editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
>
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Join us at Sierra Summit 2005. For information go to:
http://www.sierrasummit2005.org/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/
|
