Poachers are enemies of wildlife. They are "game hogs" -- shooting animals out of season or shooting animals beyond legally established limits. They are "wildlife butchers" -- shooting protected species and often using illegal methods of killing. They are motivated by greed and often a lust for slaughter.
Their victims are helpless wild animals, who just want to live free of molestation from humans. But wildlife watchers and lawful hunters are cheated by the actions of these people, too, since the poacher kills and depletes wildlife and denies opportunities for others.
The politically-oriented hunting rights groups, such as the NRA, the Safari Club International, and the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, offer mild protest of poaching. They offer anti-poaching bromides, but no real action to halt the slaughter of millions of animals by poachers. In contrast, The Humane Society of the United States has an anti-poaching rewards program, offering more than $250,000 in rewards since 2008, and we are working with more and more state fish and wildlife agencies on the problem. We are also working with lawmakers to strengthen penalties to lock up poachers wherever they do their killing.
Some of the biggest hunting rights advocates have had their brushes with the law when it comes to illegal wildlife killing. This week, law enforcement nabbed a big buck within the hunting rights field: Rocker Ted Nugent pled no contest in a California court to poaching activities -- baiting a deer and not having a properly signed hunting tag.
If Nugent were just some rank-and-file loudmouth, the court proceedings wouldn't have stirred much attention. But Nugent is not only a long-serving boardmember of the NRA (15 years), he's a self-styled voice for hunters across America. We've always thought he's an embarrassment to the hunting lobby, providing an unceasing bilge of callous and crude beliefs and behaving in ways that are directly at odds with the self-portrait offered by hunters.
Nugent says one thing and does another. He says that sport hunters are great conservationists, and then he goes on to defend the most unsporting, reckless, and irresponsible forms of hunting, such as canned hunts, bear baiting, or pigeon shoots.
Earlier this month, his poaching came to light when state authorities, acting on an investigation by wardens from the California Department of Fish and Game, brought 11 charges against Nugent, including killing a deer too young to be legally hunted. In a deal with Yuba County prosecutors, Nugent's attorney last Friday entered no contest pleas to two misdemeanor charges.
On its website, the NRA says that "All sportsmen and women have a responsibility to other hunters and landowners, the public, wildlife, and above all, to themselves. It is essential that all hunters abide by a code of ethics."
If the NRA truly had hunting ethics as a paramount concern -- rather than as a placeholder on the website -- it would oust Nugent from its board. If The HSUS had a board member who pled guilty to animal cruelty, he or she would be gone in a flash. But tolerating Nugent and his behavior is just par for the course for the NRA.
The NRA gives lip service to combating poaching, but really does nothing meaningful on the front. In this case, we've got unmistakable evidence that one of its leaders got in on the action himself.
This post originally appeared on Pacelle's blog, A Humane Nation.
I've never been a fan of the NRA, mostly because I just don't like guns. But, I have always supposed that people had a right to them, althought not the assault rifles that they seem to think they need.
But now that I know that they are willing to keep him as a board member, and just ignore his actions, I realize that they are just all talk and don't really stand for anything that is good.
I guess they are just a group of people who organized so that some other people could continue to sell guns and ammunition and make a lot of money doing it, and found a way to use our Constitution and back that up.
When, specifically, has the National Rifle Association expressed a "need" for assault rifles?
If you choose to make that the NRA, that's your problem. It's not what I said. And, of course, it's not all prople. All I said about the NRA was that I wasn't a fan of them. Am I not allowed to chose whom I will supportt?
Do you know what an assault rifle is?
I have heard several people on the radio who are actually quite good at what they do. One of them gives personal advice, but then wants to tell everybody what movies to see. Ok, that's not too bad.
The other one gives advice about how you spend your money, and he wants to tell people his political views and why the Democrats are wrong. I have lost confidence in the second one, especially. I don't tune into him for that purpose and don't want to hear that garbage. I respect him for his other advice, but NOT for his political views. But he wants people to believe that because he's good at one thing, then it should follow that he's good at something else.
Same thing here with this Nugent guy. Good guitarist, poor at other things. And he has claimed a couple of times that he would run for office...ok, put your money where your mouth is and DO IT. Don't just talk about it. I think he likes the attention.
As for the hunting deal, I think he thinks the rules don't applly to him. He's too special.
http://www.fgc.ca.gov/regulations/current/mammalregs.asp#251_3
Typical Rethug—the rules are for everyone else, not for him. Your gun gives you a big enough advantage over the animals, but that isn't good enough for Ted. He has to bend and break the rules to give himself a bigger advantage.
Too bad there's not a hunting season for lowlifes like him.
Yet another right-winger directing the public to "do as he says... not as he does... "
.