Conference vmsnet::hunting$note:hunting

    If this ban takes effect, where will Mass. gets if funding for wildlife
    management/ research or any other related services?  
    
    I wonder if PETA will come up with the millions of dollars now
    generated by the Pitman Robinson act to cover those expenses?
    
    If one can't hunt it or fish it...then don't take money from a 
    special tax from hunters and fisher people to support it.
    
    PETA should stand for: People eating tasty animals...
    
    Off my soap box....
    
    Jeff

    re.-1
    I agree with most of your note, except the title. I don't think PETA
    people would want to be associated with Rush fans (Ditto heads)  %^)
    
    I replyed to the basenote in the Fishing file, I believe, and to
    summerize, (You can read my lengthy response in the Fishing-v2 file, if
    you care to) game management should not be put into the hands of the
    voters...most voters know squat about game management(witness
    COlorado's screwed up bear seasons and our subsequent bear problems)
     elected, but mostly  appointed officials should make up the majority
    of a DoW (Div of Wildlife), biologists that should (always questionable
    with game management, IMO) know what their doing. A DoW *SHOULD* ask
    for input to any management option/program from *ALL* interested
    parties, be they outdoorsman, environmentalists, anti-hunters/trappers, 
    city and rural folk, farmers and ranchers, and birdwatchers....the
    outdoors is for *ALL OF US!* that input should be studyed for not only
    the needs of the animals, (#1 priority, IMO) from a biological
    standpoint, but also for the wants of the public...all the public. A
    DoW should take into consideration all opinions, weed out the extreme
    or just plain stupid (like totally ending spring bear hunts) and implement 
    the more sane wants/needs/demands of the public (like elimanating 
    steel leg-hold traps and snares instead of simply ending trapping).   
    
    well, this is longer than I wanted it to be...I've fished Colo for 20
    years, and hunted here almost as long. I don't agree with everything
    any side of the fence says on any issue. I've had objection to things
    said and done by PETA as much as I have by things said and done by the
    DoW. Both have their place IMO. Both need monitoring, IMO, for
    stupidity. 
    
    deadhead

    
    re -1
    
    Just a couple points. There is no way the F&W folks can please
    everyone. Not when one group is dedicated to ending hunting/fishing/
    trapping. They (PETA etc) will not compromise. We as sportsmen already
    have. We abide by seasons, bag limits, limitations on firearms used,
    traps used, amount of hooks that can be used etc. These rules and
    limitations were found not to be harmful to wildlife populations
    nor to be inhumane. I trust the F&W folks whose job it is to protect
    and manage the wildlife not PETA. if we give a little now, then a 
    little more later, then a little more later, it won't be long till we
    have nothing. It has to stop somewhere and while PETA is entitled to their
    opinion but they should not force their opinion on me or anyone else.
   
    
    Walt
                                                     

    
    Walt,
    
    	I totally agree, PETA has one thing on there mind. Which is to
    let nature take its course. They would rather have a whole herd
    of animals die of starvation, then be shot and killed.
    
    Ron

    	One of the biggest problems with putting this on a ballot is that
    if it's listed something like -
    
    	Are you in favor of the Wildlife Protection Act    Y/N ?
    
    	then the possibility exists for many well meaning but uninformed
    people to vote "Yes", just because it sounds like a good thing. Since
    I have not seen the proposal myself, I fall under that uninformed
    category, but at least I know there's more than meets the eye here.
    
    	Ray
    

    
    	The bill starts off as a "Do you want to ban leg hold traps, when
    trapping in Massachusetts?". Then farther down it adds the provision
    of changing the makeup of the Fish and Wildlife BOD. This is the dangerous
    part, because right now the F&W board of directors is weighted towards the
    sportsman by law. This law will change that and allow ANYBODY to be on
    the F&W BOD. The F&W BOD is appointed by the Governor, so as soon as
    Massachusetts elects a anti-hunting governor there is nothing
    preventing the sportsman from getting shafted.
    	This hole thing should start heating up this summer. The Mass Bass
    federation is trying to get B.A.S.S. involved, hopefully we can get
    the NRA and other Sportsmen organizations involved to defeat the bill.
    
    Ron

    
    Ron there is another group of folks fighting this. They are
    Concerned citizens conservation coaliton ( i think). I can
    put thier name/address in here tommorow if you like.
    PETA wants 4 anti hunters put on he F&W board, I wonder why? Some
    antis tried to do this several years back, they tried to sue the F&W
    dept saying it was unconstitutional not tohave anti's on the board.
    The judge said it was not and dismissed the case.
    
    
    Walt

    
    I read somewhere that a young boy asked the "Make a Wish Foundation"
    for a trip to hunt Alaskan Brown bear. The anti's went nuts and phoned
    in bomb threats to the MAWF. These people really need to get a life.
    Dont they have anything better to do than harrass a dying boy? geesh.
    
    
    Walt

     an update to -1


     Heard on the radio this morning that the kid did not get a bear.
    They also said that his cancer went into a state of remission. Of
    course the radio jocks had to put their 2 cents in and subtly
    slammed the Make a Wish Foundation and hunting in general.
    
    Walt

	About a month ago, I received a letter from the CCC, asking for a
donation to help defeat Question 1 - the so called "Wildlife Protection Act" -
in Massachusetts this fall. (If anyone wants to send a donation, put a note in
and I'll post the address.)  The letter was pretty plain, and arrived in a 
regular looking envelope.  I gave them what I could.

	Last week, my wife received a letter (typed in below) from ProPAW, the
backers of Question 1. It arrived in a very professional looking envelope, 
complete with a nice logo and a catchy design across the front.  It was mailed 
from zip code 23230, which doesn't look like it's from Mass - anyone know where 
that is?  

	Included in the envelope was the obligatory picture of a cute young
animal (in this case it was a little bear cub), looking out at you with a 
"please don't let those nasty hunters hurt me" expression.  On the back of this 
picture is a list of all the things that will be accomplished with a "yes" 
vote - ending the cruelty, blah blah blah.  Also included in the envelope were 
a couple of newspaper editorials extolling the virtues of this act.  Finally, 
they included a postage-paid envelope so we could send in our "supporting gift" 
of $20, $50, or even $100. (They'll be getting the envelope back, but there 
won't be any money in it.)

	From the looks of this mailing, these people are very well financed,
and very determined - something that should worry anyone who hunts or traps in 
Mass.  These people represent a very real threat...



	           Pro PAW LETTER SERVICE -- URGENT MESSAGE


     From: Karen Bunting		&		Aaron Medlock
           Chair of ProPAW				Treasurer


   Dear Ms. Esielionis,

	   The "Massachusetts Wildlife Protection Act" -- Question 1 --
   will be on the ballot when you go to the polls to vote in November.

	   It will be the one and only initiative petition on the ballot!
	   --------------------------------------------------------------

	   This Act must not fail!
	   -----------------------

	   But we regret to inform you that it faces stiff opposition
   from local and statewide and national hunting groups including the
   wealthy National Rifle Association.

	   They are mounting a massive counter offensive, complete with
   lies and half-lies.  But here are the facts:
			-----------------------

	Provision #1:  It bans cruel, body-gripping traps including the use
        -------------------------------------------------------------------
   of leghold traps.
   -----------------

	   These leghold traps are deemed inhumane by the American
   Veterinary Medical Association.

	   Primary damage to the animal happens after the trap jaws snap
   shut on the animal's leg, torso, or head.  And some animals will
   even resort to chewing off a limb in an attempt to escape.

	Provision #2:  It bans the use of hounds when hunting black
	-----------------------------------------------------------
   bears and bobcats.
   ------------------

	   Under existing laws, hunters are permitted to chase bears and 
   bobcats with a pack of dogs, simply as a "training" exercise.  The 
   dogs will often overtake, maul and kill cubs and kittens.  Bear
   hounding season lasts six months and bobcat hounding season is
   year-round.

	   (It's ironic that in a state than bans cock fighting and dog
   fighting we allow bear-dog fighting and bobcat-dog fighting.)


	Provision #3:  Eliminates the requirement that five of
	------------------------------------------------------
   seven members of the Fisheries and Wildlife Board must have
   -----------------------------------------------------------
   possessed sporting licenses in each of the past five years to
   -------------------------------------------------------------
   serve as members, and that four members must represent hunting,
   ---------------------------------------------------------------
   trapping, and fishing interests.
   --------------------------------

	   Talk about a stacked deck!  This is totally ridiculous. In
   the entire Commonwealth, there are only 250 people who trap and
   fewer than 3% who hunt!

	   So, in effect, this present law excludes 97% of residents
   from occupying any one of five seats on the board.  Do we live
   in a democracy or not?

	   We urge you.  Help us pass the Massachusetts Wildlife
   Protection Act!

	   Here are three action steps you can take:

	   Action Step #1:  Make sure you are registered to vote!
	   ------------------------------------------------------

	   Action Step #2:  Vote "YES" on Question 1!
	   ------------------------------------------

	   Action Step #3:  Send a contribution immediately to ProPAW,
	   -----------------------------------------------------------
   (Protect Pets and Wildlife, a joint effort of The Humane Society
   of the United States, the Massachusetts Audubon Society, and the
   MSPCA).

	   If we fail to counter the propaganda of the hunting lobby, we
   could lose this war to ban cruel trapping an hounding practices.
   This must not happen.

	   For that reason, we are taking the bold step of requesting
   that you send a gift today of $20.

	   If you wish to send more, such as $50, or even $100, then
   please do so!  And if for some reason $20 is too much for your
   budget, then please send at least $10.

	   Help us get this law passed!  Send your gift now...and be sure
   to vote "YES" to Question 1 on the November ballot.  It'll make
   Massachusetts a more humane state, a better place to live.

	   Put an end once and for all to this cruelty.

	   We thank you for reading this urgent letter and look forward
   to hearing from you.

		Sincerely,			Sincerely,

		Karen Bunting			Aaron Medlock
		Chair				Treasurer


   P.S.  We've enclosed a couple of news clippings for you to look at
	 and then perhaps if the occasion arises, you can pass them
	 on to someone who may not understand the cruel and inhumane
	 hunting practices that are still alive in Massachusetts.

    
    re .10,
    
    	Glad you posted it, since I'm in a Bass fishing club I have been
    kept up to date on what the CCC is doing to fight ProPaw.
    	While reading what you posted, the big joke is the mentioning
    of the NRA. The last that I knew, was that the NRA was giving the
    CCC a very small amount of money, if anything at all. Since the Wildlife
    Protection Act is for Massachusetts ONLY, the NRA didn't want to
    get involved. The NRA concentrates on laws that effect the entire
    nation, not individual states.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ron