| New Jersey and Maryland, what a
pair. They both either outlaw or continually propose to outlaw traps, trap
collections, and trapping. They both have growing bear populations that they
cannot agree to manage by restricting numbers and distributions of these
harmful and dangerous animals to the least populated portions of their states.
They both have very restrictive gun laws that they are quick to
enthusiastically enforce. They both strongly support Federal legislation and
Federal agency activities that close down Federal lands to use, access, and
management. They both favor wolf introductions, grizzly bear protection, and
oppose mountain lion hunting in western states. They both favor closing down
grazing and forest management and harvest on public lands. They are both
opposed to any offshore drilling or energy development or nuclear power
anywhere. They are both home to large environmental and animal rights
extremist organizations. They both have high taxes and repeatedly favor more
Federal taxation. They have large anti-hunting populations and they (along
with Massachusetts, Illinois, and California) are among the forefront of state
and local schemes to limit and then eliminate not only "bloodsports"
but also any animal use or ownership. Why is any of this important?
Because when states like these claim the sky
is falling because a catfish pops up where it didn't used to be, accept their
claims of Armageddon with a grain of salt. When states like these infer or
recommend that the Federal government should send money and play a role in the
management of STATE RESOURCES, take it with another grain of salt since they
never saw a Federal dollar they didn't like. When a state that would just as
soon prohibit sport fishing tells you they are worried about "catfish and
sunfish" or "gamefish, especially bass" just laugh. When a
state would kill mute swans simply because they interfere with state grass
plantings, ask them why they think it alright to force wolves on other people
that love or use their pets that the wolves eat or need the livestock the
wolves kill or want to hunt the elk the wolves decimate? When a state that
thinks nothing of seizing the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone living in or
traveling through their state suggests new Federal authority (over Invasive
Species) is needed, ask them why new Federal authority is good but long
established Constitutional rights and Federal guarantee of those rights for
over 200 years can be dismissed by any state at any time for all residents or
travelers? When agencies can propose making a bird that has been here for over
200 years extinct, why should we believe them when they say wolves and grizzly
bears that have been gone for half a century or more are "necessary"
today where people live, work, and recreate? When bureaucrats say they
"must" revegetate the Chesapeake Bay through artificial planting,
how is that different from public or private land managers and owners
revegetating forests and grasslands to use them or protect them from fires?
|
Back
