Cal. Senator Feinstein Wants Slaughter of Elk and Deer

[MY T PIMP]

Friday, December 21, 2007

As we reported last year, Congressman Duncan Hunter (R-CA) helped to enact an NRA-backed law to save the 1100 Roosevelt Elk and Kaibab Mule Deer on Santa Rosa Island from court-ordered extermination. Congresswoman Lois Capps (D-CA) and Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) were outraged. It was clear that they were not going to give up until every elk and mule deer on the island had been destroyed.

This week, Senator Feinstein succeeded in inserting a provision into the Omnibus Appropriations Bill that repeals this animal-saving law. This action, passed in the dark of night, reinstates the extermination order that must be carried out by 2011. This is a terrible blow to wildlife conservation in America.

Santa Rosa

[Jaxx]

So they want them killed so people can't hunt them? Did I miss something there?

[MY T PIMP]

:frustrated: This goes to show the true motive and arrogance of these politicians. There are many National Parks that strive to keep the herritage of some of their non natural pre-existing conditions. The one that most clearly comes to mind is Capitol Reef, with it's pioneer orchards and buildings. Why are these disease free herds such a threat?

[fouristhenewone]

Can you give us a little bit more back detail - like a reference for this article....?

[CarpeyBiggs]

Crazy. I guess I am missing a whole lot of context. What is that island used for?

[MY T PIMP]

Here is another article on the matter, it may have more info. :ne_nau:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/sports/columns/article_1383922.php

[Sombeech]

This is a prime example of how ASS BACKWARDS the anti hunting crowd is. Their purpose in life is to save the animals?

Whether or not there are too many animals on the island, or if some idiot thinks that hunting is restricting the public access, how do you think they'll exterminate the animals? With FRIGGIN' GUNS.

They don't care if they die, just as long as they weren't "hunted". I guess extermination is a better word for hunted.

So, these jackasses can actually MAKE MONEY by selling hunting permits and controlling the population (like the bear thing), but instead they want to SPEND MONEY and send in the exterminators.

Do you think they'll use the meat?

[CarpeyBiggs]

So, these jackasses can actually MAKE MONEY by selling hunting permits and controlling the population (like the bear thing), but instead they want to SPEND MONEY and send in the exterminators.

Consider reading the article 'Beech. Not sure where you are basing most of these heated arguments you are throwing out. Who exactly are the jackasses? The hunting concession, who makes money? Or the people who want to exterminate the animals? I'm confused.

I googled a few other articles on this, and it is very complicated. Not sure I understand really what is going on.

There are tons of factors going into this decision. This is an island that was privately owned for most of the last century, and sold to the NPS in the 80s. The family that owned the island introduced these non-native species to the island, and now that the NPS is managing the property, they are trying to figure out what to do with them.

It is not necessarily a hunting vs. anti-hunting dilemma. It has to do with the management of the island and restoring it to it's most natural condition. The animals are slated to be removed from the island due to a legal ruling in the 90s. The hunting will end by 2011, as the hunting concession appears to be ran through the family that used to own the island. Once the concession runs out, it appears the NPS desires to remove the non-native species from the island and restore all public access. During the hunting season, public access seems to be limited, which the NPS apparently does not approve of. Those are some of the elements of the debate. Should the animals even be removed? If so, how? Extermination, or shipped back to the mainland? Should a private hunt be happening on NPS land? Are the current animals lives more important than the historical species that have lived on this island? The list of questions goes on and on...

Sounds very complicated to me, and hardly framed by hunters and anti-hunters. There are more like 4 sides or 5 sides to this argument.

[Sombeech]

Who exactly are the jackasses?

The people wanting to exterminate the animals; I like to keep things simple.

[JP]

So they want them killed so people can't hunt them? Did I miss something there?
Politicians making laws on stuff they know nothing about. That's what happens when Lobbyists get into your head :haha:

[fouristhenewone]

so - let's see...are you for the removal of non-native fish from streams and rivers in the west so that native species can survive?

then shut the @#$% up already.

[James_B_Wads2000]

I like to keep things simple.

And that

[MY T PIMP]

[quote=James_B_Wads2000] But I am willing to guess that if the PS wants them removed they have a more legitimate reason than,

[CarpeyBiggs]

Hunters aside, what about the rare genetically pure and disease free elk and deer herds. How about other national parks who have adopted some ot their unnatural preexisting conditions and there was no contriversy.
There are many isolated herds on the mainland. Just because one herd contracts a disease does not mean all herds will. What happens if the herd on the island gets a disease? Not really a point of worthy debate.


Simply put this is a prime example of leftist "cherry picking."
What you meant to say is, this is a prime example of you trying to cherry pick an incident to frame as leftist cherry picking. This isn't an argument about trying to rid the world of hunting. This is an isolated situation on an island with a peculiar set of circumstances. But it sure makes great propaganda if you want to spin it that way. (Very similar to the bear footage I posted, as another example. All depends on which view choose to espouse.)


That aside, I would like you to show me a group of people who has done more for wildlife conservation?
No one ever said hunters don't have a heavy hand in general wildlife protection. But there are many other groups who are also involved. If you want to talk purely money, hunters probably put in the most as a "group." But that is not because of an organized effort on their part, necessarily. It is because you have to pay for the right to harvest OUR animals. I'm hesitant to even call them "our" animals, because really, no one owns them. Yet we all have equal right to enjoy them. So I wouldn't exactly portray your conservation efforts as noble. Especially considering the celebration of blood sport we've seen on here recently. But yeah, I'll agree with you, your taxes and use fees do a lot to help manage the wildlife. Thanks.

But then again, this isn't an argument of hunters vs. non-hunters. It's a complicated situation, in regards to this island. Whatever source you quoted from is clearly biased in how they choose to represent it though. So if it makes you feel better that it is a "leftist" conspiracy, so be it. Lord knows nothing anyone else says will change your mind.

[MY T PIMP]

There are many isolated herds on the mainland. Just because one herd contracts a disease does not mean all herds will. What happens if the herd on the island gets a disease? Not really a point of worthy debate.
Yes generally speaking your right, but were talking Rosevelt Elk and Mule deer here. Both compared to Rocky Mountain Elk and Whitetale deer are a small fraction of the broader scheme. Mule deer populations especially are generally susceptible to CWD, which to me means the continued existence of the Santa Rosa herd could be crucial for future generations of these animals.


What you meant to say is, this is a prime example of you trying to cherry pick an incident to frame as leftist cherry picking. This isn't an argument about trying to rid the world of hunting. This is an isolated situation on an island with a peculiar set of circumstances. But it sure makes great propaganda if you want to spin it that way. (Very similar to the bear footage I posted, as another example. All depends on which view choose to espouse.)
You bet it feels like cherry picking to me. Why, must this herd cease to exist. Why can't it continue on for everyones benefit. None of the reasons given make any sense to me. :ne_nau:

For instance take the Yellowstone Canadian Gray Wolf introduction. I say introduction and not reintroduction because that's what it was. Canadian grays are 50-100 lbs bigger than the original Rocky Mtn. Wolves that inhabited the area. What's funny is no one took into consideration the difference the two species might have on eco-systems. Infact here is a quote from ESPN magazine.


The science used to introduce wolves was dubious as stated by Dr. Charles E. Kay, in his Independent Policy Report. "The Federal Government and other wolf advocates have taken liberties with the truth, with science, and with the Endangered Species Act. Wolf studies regarding possible impact on big game are arbitrary and capricious. They represent not science but a masterful job of deception."

Canadian Grays are NOT the original wolf that was in Wyoming. The original Rocky Mountain Wolf was much smaller and did not run in packs.

Why is it okay for a non native species to be introduced to one National Park, but a less impactive deer and elk herd on another island must go. :ne_nau: Cherry Picking :ne_nau:

[CarpeyBiggs]

Good questions. Here's my favorite response from you.


Keep in mind that all aside this is wildlife management dictated by scintific experts much smarter than us. Whose greatest goal is simply to achieve balance for all wildlife.

[MY T PIMP]

Good questions. Here's my favorite response from you.


Keep in mind that all aside this is wildlife management dictated by scintific experts much smarter than us. Whose greatest goal is simply to achieve balance for all wildlife.

And I stand by that response. Sadly, this debate has has brought forth one of the few times fish and wildlife agencies were limited in involvement and allong with the government have failed to work together. Here is a quote from a statement from the Idaho Fish and Game concerning Idaho and Yellowstone Canadian Gray Wolf introduction.

[quote]At that time, the Idaho
Legislature strictly limited the Idaho Department of Fish and Game

[CarpeyBiggs]

And I stand by that response. Sadly, this debate has has brought forth one of the few times fish and wildlife agencies were limited in involvement and allong with the government have failed to work together. Here is a quote from a statement from the Idaho Fish and Game concerning Idaho and Yellowstone Canadian Gray Wolf introduction.


Any links on that, curious to see the context of your quote. I have a hard time believing that no wildlife experts were consulted. Perhaps IFG wasn't consulted, but I'm sure there were many federal managers involved. The National Park Service is loaded with wildlife management people. But I wasn't referring to Yellowstone, I was referring to Santa Rosa. Were wildlife folks contacted before putting the animals on the island?

Sounds like you only have faith in the system when it plays in your particular favor.

[Sombeech]

The National Park Service is loaded with wildlife management people.

Sounds like you only have faith in the system when it plays in your particular favor.

Then again, you didn't believe the NPS's numbers about the Bear population neither, so.....

[CarpeyBiggs]

The National Park Service is loaded with wildlife management people.

Sounds like you only have faith in the system when it plays in your particular favor.

Then again, you didn't believe the NPS's numbers about the Bear population neither, so.....

Yes, which I was in fact correct about... Or did you forget that?

[Sombeech]

No, I haven't forgot that you don't trust the NPS

[CarpeyBiggs]

No, I haven't forgot that you don't trust the NPS
Ah yes, another classic thread bomb lobbed by my favorite moderator. Nice work.

Trust isn't the issue 'Beech. Reading comprehension is.