03 August 2004, 23:37
Balla BallaBeing a member of HSC I rec'd this email today, it might be of interest to you hunters in the USA
Regards, Peter
================================
Folks,
In what appears to be an end-of-year political move, Senator Lautenberg has again introduced the canned hunting bill. The bill is vague, and could probably be administered to prohibit all hunting of exotic animals behind a fence.
Rick
Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2004 (Introduced in Senate)
S 2731 IS
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2731
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
July 22, 2004
Mr. LAUTENBERG (for himself, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. CORZINE, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mr. KOHL, Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. SCHUMER) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit certain interstate conduct relating to exotic animals.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Captive Exotic Animal Protection Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The ethic of hunting involves the consideration of fair chase, which allows the animal the opportunity to avoid the hunter.
(2) At more than 1,000 commercial canned hunt operations across the country, trophy hunters pay a fee to shoot captive exotic animals, from African lions to giraffes and blackbuck antelope, in fenced-in enclosures.
(3) Clustered in a captive setting at unusually high densities, confined exotic animals attract disease more readily than more widely dispersed native species who roam freely.
(4) The transportation of captive exotic animals to commercial canned hunt operations can facilitate the spread of disease across great distances.
(5) The regulation of the transport and treatment of exotic animals on shooting preserves falls outside the traditional domains of State agriculture departments and State fish and game agencies.
(6) This Act is limited in its purpose and will not limit the licensed hunting of any native mammals or any native or exotic birds.
(7) This Act does not aim to criticize those hunters who pursue animals that are not enclosed within a fence.
(8) This Act does not attempt to prohibit slaughterhouse activities, nor does it aim to prohibit the routine euthanasia of domesticated farm animals.
SEC. 3. TRANSPORT OR POSSESSION OF EXOTIC ANIMALS FOR PURPOSES OF KILLING OR INJURING THEM.
(a) IN GENERAL- Chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 49. Exotic animals
`(a) PROHIBITION- Whoever, in or substantially affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly transfers, transports, or possesses a confined exotic animal, for the purposes of allowing the killing or injuring of that animal for entertainment or for the collection of a trophy, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.
`(b) DEFINITIONS- In this section--
`(1) the term `confined exotic animal' means a mammal of a species not historically indigenous to the United States, that has been held in captivity, whether or not the defendant knows the length of the captivity, for the shorter of--
`(A) the majority of the animal's life; or
`(B) a period of 1 year; and
`(2) the term `captivity' does not include any period during which an animal lives as it would in the wild--
`(A) surviving primarily by foraging for naturally occurring food;
`(B) roaming at will over an open area of not less than 1,000 acres; and
`(C) having the opportunity to avoid hunters.
`(c) ENFORCEMENT-
`(1) IN GENERAL- Any person authorized by the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, may--
`(A) without a warrant, arrest any person that violates this section (including regulations promulgated under this section) in the presence or view of the arresting person;
`(B) execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction to enforce this section; and
`(C) with a search warrant, search for and seize any animal taken or possessed in violation of this section.
`(2) FORFEITURE- Any animal seized with or without a search warrant shall be held by the Secretary or by a United States marshal, and upon conviction, shall be forfeited to the United States and disposed of by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with law.
`(3) ASSISTANCE- The Director of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service may use by agreement, with or without reimbursement, the personnel and services of any other Federal or State agency for the purpose of enforcing this section.'.
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT- The analysis for chapter 3 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 49. Exotic animals'.
04 August 2004, 02:12
Borealis BobAs I read this it would outlaw the type of operations that give us a bad image. Seems like they are trying to put the shoot -'em -in- the -corral operators out of business, which is fine with me.
Where I sometimes go for boar in TN. they also have some exotics, but there is over 2,000 acres for them to roam and hide in. Does not seem like this bill is targeted at that type of relatively fair-chase outfit.
04 August 2004, 03:04
JJHACKAlthough I'm not interested in exotic hunting, I would agree that the definitions are subject to change once the law is passed.
Once something is made into law it's much easier to modify the contents slightly then to create or pass the original law. It would seem to me that the modification of 2000 acres or 5000 acres would be their next logical step. From there they change the law again to allow only hunting of game naturally born within the area and nothing can be imported into the area or exported out. This for their so called "diesese control". As if a private game manager would allow sick animals to exist for fear of losing everything! Imagine having 100,000 worth of wild exotic game and leaving anything alive that looked sick, or releasing any new animals that did not have a quarantine check out period. I worked years ago for one of these places. On the whole they have pretty tight control over what they buy and what they "stock". Any one sloppy about this business is not in it very long! After that the end of the operation is sealed and the game is over. Cost would be so high Africa would be far cheaper to hunt!
04 August 2004, 04:31
DutchI have a personal aversion to all hunting preserves and pay-to-hunt operations in general. Don't like them, don't use them.
That said, one can very well have a fair chase hunt for certain species (the smaller deer, bear, boar, coyotes, fox, rabbits, etc) on properties less than 1,000 acres.
Conversely, some buffalo hunts on 5,000 acres are little more than point-and-shoot operations.
From the language, though, I would think that PETA would be in court in three days, claiming that shooting cattle in a slaughterhouse is illegal, because they are shooting exotics in less than 1,000 acres.... Dutch.
04 August 2004, 04:50
TrademarkTexanThis bill would be a very serious blow to hunting in general. I understand if you don't personally like hunting "behind a fence."
FWIW, I hunted a place in the Texas Hill Country a couple years ago that was about 150 acres (I know most of you guys think this is about the size of your yard, but it's actually a large parcel of land, relatively). They had axis, blackbuck, and whitetail, NO HIGH FENCE. Two of us hunted hard all day, and got 1 blackbuck and a couple of wt does. We chased axis does all over the place. They never did cross any of the perimeter cattle fencing, but would avoid us easily in the dense cover.
If you support this bill, I would say you need to expand your myopic horizons and look at the big picture--this is a bill
outlawing LEGAL, FAIR CHASE hunting!!04 August 2004, 06:28
Mike SmithGeorge, That is the truth!
I am totally against canned hunting. That said I am also totally against this bill. First we dont need a law to tell us not to do it. Second and more important I see it as only opening Pandora's box. The antis will twist it to say whatever they think it should say. It will be a political nightmare and cost millions in fighting frivolous lawsuits. Like Pandora, once it is opened there is no putting it back.
It is a bad bill and should be fought with everything we have. It is just like the anti gun bills we have to fight continually. Once the antis get their foot in the door there will be hell to pay, mark my words.
04 August 2004, 09:16
gerald416Mike Smith:
I hear what you say. We despise canned hunts and would avoid them without the need for a law against them. Here's what I think is the problem, however. These canned hunts (particularly here in the eastern US where we simply don't have the thousands of acres available in the West) are regular subjects on TV. PETA and similar organizations thrive on pointing out how awful these "hunts" are - and they are right! You and I must remember that these anti hunting fanatics are appealing to that part of our society that doesn't hunt at all - but is perfectly prepared to concede the right of others to hunt. I grew up with such people -who let me hunt on their properties as a boy. I knew them well then and so do you. We have to play a public relations game. Look at the "assault rifle" ban. The plain fact is that such firearms are worthless for any hunting -and, as home protection weapons - well, make mine a Colt 1911A1,45 ACP or a 12-16-20 ga. shotgun (or for that matter, a Ruger PC4 in 40 S&W) The NRA's determined opposition to the ban has given that body of independent people the idea that we are fanatics.
We have to support the IDEA that canned hunts are as objectionable to us as to them. The NRA's idea that we are letting the camel get his nose under the tent is nonsense. In another 20 years at this rate, there will be no private ownership of firearms nor private hunting, either.
04 August 2004, 11:23
patrkyhntr"In another 20 years at this rate, there will be no private ownership of firearms nor private hunting, either."
I agree with you, Gerald, as long as you are willing to give it up piece by piece. I support the NRA and SCI on this one. If you are willing to give up sport hunting, keep on supporting PETA in their "one reasonable step at a time" strategy. Today it is "canned hunts," some of which aren't really canned hunts anyway. Tomorrow it will be hunting on any property that has a fence. The next step will be banning hunting of cute animals like deer and bears. We already gave up the ghost on leghold traps. We have basically lost the battle on "assault weapons." You are entitled to your opinion, but I wish you would not trust the bunny huggers so much and would stop trying to pass your opinion off as the only possible right one.
I might agree with you insofar as hunting an animal released from a cage specifically for a particular hunter to kill being a canned hunt. I don't agree with your hatred of hunting on any type of preserve. Does that make me wrong? I don't think so. The camel already has its nose under the tent because you are lifting the edge for him. Lift it a bit higher and the whole camel will enter.
04 August 2004, 13:55
KenscoI tend to agree that there are dangers in any new legislation, but what bothers me is that we are not very good at policing ourselves so I am more open minded to any suggestions even if I fear the results.
In hunting camp last month I listened to more horror stories about SCIs needing to get a trophy. (Quite frankly SCI is becoming a behind-the-back joke among outfitters and guides.) In this case it was a bighorn sheep that had been hand-fed all its life. It was a beauty and the man paid over $30,000 to shoot it after it stepped out of a trailer. Actually he gut shot it at about 50' and the ram ran back into the trailer. The man that had raised the ram had to go into the trailer and finish it off. The "hunter" got what he wanted, bragging rights and a head on his wall. These type of people make me sick and give sport hunting a bad name.
I disagree with past practice of shipping truck loads of Canadian whitetail to South Texas to fool people into believing certain ranches "raise" super bucks.
The bastards in our business won't be happy until all the wild game is dead and we can only "hunt" on their pay-as-you-go ranches.
We need to stop being against everything, and start being for some type of positive change before we lose our rights.
I don't have the answers, but we at least need to stop blaming "outside forces" all the time for our problems. We need to start exposing and correcting the twisted mentality that exists on our side of the issue.
04 August 2004, 15:04
Mike SmithI agree we need to clean our own house. Change has to come from within. Although I support SCI in many things, this trophy mania is one I dont agree with. As far as "hunting" an animal off a trailer or in a feedlot etc. I cant abide by that in any instance. I am also not closed to change. I am open to anything that I think will bring positive changes. I just dont believe that to be the case here. A fenced proprty does not equal a canned hunt. As far as that goes I believe you can have a canned hunt on 10,000 hectares if the use of feeders is employed. I know a lot of places use feeders and that is ok. You just shouldnt be allowed to hunt around them in my opinion. This then brings up hunting over baits, the problem as I see it is you cant seperate all the different types of hunting and shooting that go on. That is why I said it would become a legal nightmare. Is hunting over waterholes ok? How about with hounds? Lights at night, good or bad? You have to remember this includes varmint hunters. There are many different types of hunting and much overlap between them. I am in complete agreement that the so called hunting episode you descibed is totally unethical. How it could be called hunting is totally beyond me. I think that these types of instances should be brought to light by ethical hunters and outfitters. The information should be made public for all to see. We should be very forcefull in our condemnation of such practices. We should also join whatever organizations apply. In doing so we support the good and try to change the things that need to be. We will not always be successful. At times it becomes down right discouraging but we must not give up. There will always be those who look for shortcuts and abuse the standards we hold. Change comes slowly but persistance is the key. The problem with this legislation is it is written by a bunch of anti-gun anti-hunting inviduals who are very clear about their goals. I think we are all saying basically the same thing just from different perspectives.
Would you please give us some details of what you know on the incident you mentioned? I am very eager to start putting someones feet to the fire. Along this same subject, once the investigations with OOA all come out I think there are going to be some very high up people in SCI who will have some serious explaining to do.
This guy is a definite idiot and has absolutely no idea what a farmer's dairy goat looks like. He's fought every type of hunting and every game season here in Michigan.