From: tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: re: Animal Rights bashing
Date: 12 Oct 92 10:09:43 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In Article 9196 in rec.equestrian montyb@alpha.aosg.gsf.dec.com (Monty C. 
Brandenberg) writes:

In article <1992Oct9.225936.13922@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman) writes:
|> In Article 9178 in rec.equestrian doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
|> writes:
|> 
|> >The proposition as drafted says that game populations must be
|> >"managed by nonlethal means". How is that going to be done ?
|> >Distribute free condoms to the bucks ? How is hunting going
|> >to be allowed given such a requirement.
|> 
|> 	I have read the complete proposition and feel that this section 
|> was put in there to prevent the indiscriminant slaughter of wolves, bears, 
|> and mountain lions just because some rancher decides he feels like it. 
|>
|> [details a number of motivating events and some excessively expensive
|>  alternatives to killing wild animals]

>It doesn't matter *why* the section was put in there, only what effects
>it will produce.  Game animals are part of the Public Trust.  The various
>state and federal wildlife agencies are charged with the management of
>that part of the trust.  By legislative action, hunting exists as a tool
>with which these departments manage the herds.  If 'lethal means' of
>management is then prohibited, then hunting is prohibited.  It appears,
>from 2000 miles away, that Prob. 200 doesn't exclude hunting from this
>prohibition.

	Perhaps you should READ the proposition itself before you condemn
it from 2000 miles away.  I have the EXACT text of Proposition 200 in my
hands now (in the form of the informative booklet printed by the State
of Arizona containing all the propositions plus analysis of the legal
effect) I can provide a complete copy to you upon request via e-mail
should you wish it.  However for the purpose of this argument I will
provide you with the pertinant information.  First and most importantly
the words "non-lethal" that you boys seem to find so offensive appears
ONLY in the preamble to the actual LEGAL text of the proposition, as
such it has no legal meaning.  The sentence reads:

"... We desire to manage our wildlife and protect our property by 
humane and non-lethal methods.  We, therefore, propose the following
initiative."

	The initiative then goes on to state the sections of code which
are to be revised, sections 17-301 (D), (E), and (F) and forbids the use 
of "any leghold trap, and conibear style of trap of the instant kill or 
body-gripping type design, any snare, explosive, poison, stupefying 
substance, flammable or pyrotechnic device, except where necessary to 
protect human health and safety as may be determined from time to time 
by county or city boards of health or local health departments.
"17-301 (E)     No restriction in paragraph D shall prohibit the taking of
wildlife with guns or other implements in hand as may be defined and/or
regulated from time to time by the Commission."
	The initiative continues by amending section F to say that 
snares, stupefying substances or nets may be used for scientific research
projects and that poisons or stupefying substances may be used by the
Department to manage aquatic wildlife.

	The analysis by legislative council says that this proposition
"should not prohibit:

	1. regulated hunting or fishing with guns or other 'implements in
hand.'"
	Nor will it prohibit use of the prohibited device when the proper
authorities deem it necessary.

	Thus all of your arguments against this proposition, which you did
not read, are based on false assumptions.  Perhaps you should do some 
research before jumping to erroneous conclusions. 


|> 	However you don't have to take my word for it you can call 
|> Arizonans For Safety and Humanity on Public Lands at (602) 257-1020.

>Ah, an unbiased opinion not like those from the reactionary NRA...

	No, Monty, Dennis asked some rather inflamatory questions about this
group's intentions, the appropriate people to ask those questions of
are the sponsoring organization.

|> 	This is an example of the negative and false propoganda that 
|> the NRA and other reactionary groups are putting out about this issue.  
|> Why don't you call Arizonans For Safety and Humanity on Public Lands 
|> and ask them your questions I'm sure they would be glad to answer you.

>The law will be what is enacted by voting and implemented by the executive,
>not what the ASHPL's receptionist decides to give as an answer on the phone
>on Monday morning.

	The law will be enacted by voting, thank goodness!, but the answers
to Dennis's questions should come from this organization as they are the 
group he was asking about in the first place.

	If you have any further comments or questions, I suggest you e-mail 
them directly to me as the rest of this net group must be getting quite tired 
of all this non-equine stuff.  (Sorry, guys, I'll try to get it off the
bandwidth). 

					Tracy and everybody