Anti-hunting Democrats

[contender6030]

USSA Working to Strip Anti-Hunting Language from Public Policy
Lowey puts anti-hunting rhetoric in federal report

September 7, 2007 (National)



Language has been added to a U.S. House Committee report that will wipe out funding for international conservation programs that facilitate hunting.

Congresswoman Nita Lowey, chair of the House Foreign Appropriations Subcommittee, has climbed onto her anti-hunting soapbox to make a statement in U.S. public policy that hunting is not favored by Congress. In the committee report for the House-passed State and Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, Lowey’s staff added the following statement at the behest of the Humane Society of the United States:

“The Committee is concerned about reports that USAID directly and indirectly supports recreational, sport and trophy hunting in its assistance programs in Africa. The Committee directs USAID to provide no funds to programs that support or promote recreational, sport, or trophy hunting as a conservation tool.”

The USSA and other sportsmen organizations are working with key federal lawmakers to remove the anti-conservation language. Although it is not in the bill to become law, it is a specific recommendation by a committee that holds the purse strings for agencies that implement government programs.

“Lawmakers use committee reports to issue edicts to federal agencies recommending preferred courses of action relative to specific issues,” said Bill Horn, USSA director of federal affairs. “Agencies don’t often buck the committee suggestions.”

Successful international conservation programs use hunting as a management tool. They emulate the United States, which has effectively used hunting as a conservation tool for over a century. These programs, especially in Africa, engage local communities and are very effective: poaching is reduced, wildlife populations prosper, and natural resources like water are conserved.

“The misguided House report language stymies effective programs and will hurt conservation efforts,” adds Horn.

The USSA and other organizations have stopped several recent federal anti-hunting efforts. It beat back an overt bill rider to ban bear hunting on federal land, and recently defeated an amendment that would have prohibited Americans from hunting polar bears in Canada.

From USSA website

 

[FirstFreedom]

They're so stupid. Promoting/allowing hunting of animals is the ONLY way, realistically, to facilitate continued successful conservation efforts. It's the almighty dollar that persuades local governments that hunting is more important than the amount the poachers grease them with, and only foreign hunters can provide the kind of $$ needed to do this. Unless they have an alternative method of funding the conservation, then they need to step off. And I don't see why the taxpayer's should have to foot the bill, when the rich trophy hunters instead can!

 

[JWT]

Nita Lowey is another excellent example of a very liberal Democrat who is anti-hunting and will use her position to push her views on anyone with a different position.

Sport hunting and the fees from it have contributed significantly to increased habitat and increased populations of animals in Africa as well as the US.

Lowey, McCarthy, Shumer, Bloomberg, etc., etc., etc. all cut of the same cloth and all out to do whatever they can to outlaw anything that has any conncetion with firearms.

 

[crowbeaner]

Why is it that no one asks these people how much THEY have personally spent on preservation of wildlife habitat, or where the Pittman- Robertson funds went (embezzled) during the Clinton administration? That money is STILL MISSING and went for junkets to Aruba etc. instead of securing hunting land and preservation of game habitat. Nita Lowey represents DC and isn't even a congresswoman. Why in H*** is she even in a leadership? position? I have a position for her but it isn't pretty. CB.

 

[MosinM38]

Yeah.. I mean.. LOok how much money is generated from hunting fee's..... The FWP (Fish, Wildlife& parks) would not have NEARLY as much spending money without it.....

And it was hunters who have helped in keeping hunting limits fair..etc.... *Sigh*.

 

[ConfuseUs]

People who think banning hunting saves animals are totally missing the point: animals that are hunted for sport or food have considerable economic value, especially if hunting brings in major cash flows from outside the community. The community has a long term interest in maintaining healthy populations of animals because it is profitable to have them around.

Banning hunting removes a legitimate avenue for accessing the economic value of wildlife and eventually wildlife becomes a problem: it damages crops and property yet the economic cost of that is no longer offset by hunting. Thus, the endangered animals are not merely worthless, they have negative value and locals will eventually exterminate them because it is in their best interests to do so.