From: tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman)
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian
Subject: re: Animal Rights bashing
Date: 9 Oct 92 22:59:36 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ

In Article 9178 in rec.equestrian doconnor@sedona.intel.com (Dennis O'Connor)
writes:
[m[A

tracy@scoraz.resp-sci.arizona.edu (Tracy Scheinkman) writes:
] A group of people in Arizona has been trying for years to ban the leg-hold
] trap for several very good reasons ... the groups fighting this measure
] including the NRA and various other hunting and fishing organizations have
] labelled this measure as an "Animal Rights Extremist" measure in
] an attempt to defeat it, despite that it has written into it specifically
] that hunting and fishing are to be protected.

>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. 
I refer here to a number of incidents where ranchers went onto public
lands and shot, in one case I believe 12 bears because he said it was
good management.  The man did not need a permit, nor did he need to
inform the Bureau of Wildlife Management, nor was he in any way fined
for having decimated the bear population in that area.  It will also
prevent rangers from destroying a young lion just because it ate
someone's dog, instead requiring them to relocate said lion to a less
heavily trafficked habitat.  In the above case not one but several lions
were killed by bounty hunters without actually catching the one that
killed the dog before public outcry stopped the hunt.  Since these
cases are unusual and the public outcry would be bad for the Wildlife
Management crowd anyway it will not cost much at all to relocate those
few offending predators.
	The measure in no way inhibits legitimate hunting, nor does it
prevent the management of game species by issuing hunting licenses.
Nor does the measure prevent the destruction of rabid or dangerous
animals by wildlife managers.  It forbids the use of leg-hold traps,
snares, explosive traps, and poison to manage predators all of which
are indiscriminant anyway.
	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.

>Prop. 200 may have started as a good idea, but it's been broadened by
>animal rights extremist and radical vegitarians to the point of lunacy.
>It's poorly written, expensive to implement and a ecological disaster.
>If all they wanted to do was ban leg-hold trasp, why didn't they just
>say so ? What's their REAL agenda, I wonder ?
>And why are the gun-banning proponents are supporting Prop. 200, too...

	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.

				Tracy and everybody
Newsgroups: rec.equestrian