Bruce Friedrich: Hunters Are Like "Nazi Doctors and Slave Traders"

Animal rights activists are having a fit because the Sierra Club recently published an article by Rick Bass, “Why I Hunt.” Bass’ article fits well in a long line of pro-hunting literature which sees hunting as almost a mystical way to connect with nature. Bass writes of taking up hunting after moving to a remote Montana valley in the 1980s,

Only about 5 percent of the nation and 15 to 20 percent of Montanans are hunters. But in this one valley, almost everyone is a hunter. It is not the peer pressure of the local culture that recruits us into hunting, nor even necessarily the economic boon of a few hundred pounds of meat in a cash-poor society. Rather, it is the terrain itself, and one’s gradual integration into it, that summons the hunter. Nearly everyone who has lived here for any length of time has ended up–sometimes almost against one’s conscious wishes–becoming a hunter. This wild and powerful landscape sculpts us like clay. I don’t find such sculpting an affront to the human spirit, but instead, wonderful testimony to our pliability, our ability to adapt to a place.

In response to Bass’ article, Bruce Friedrich fired off a letter to the editor saying,

I have no doubt that society will one day look back of [sic] Mr. Bass and his ilk with he same revulsion we presently reserve for NAZI doctors and slave traders.

But as Sierra Magazine editor-in-chief Joan Hamilton notes in her response to Friedrich, “Since the mid-19th century, sport hunters have been in the forefront of efforts to create laws to save animals from commercial hunting, poaching, and habitat destruction that threatens the very existence of many species. Also, many landmark environmental achievements have relied heavily on the efforts of hunters and hunting (and fishing) organizations.”

Hamilton crosses over into the worst sort of apostasy in they eyes of the animal rights movement when she writes what is obvious to anyone who seriously studies the issue,

Aside form the environmental contributions of hunters, in some cases, hunting is necessary to keep certain populations at sustainable levels and to maintain ecological balance by preventing some species from destroying others. For example, the deer population is now estimated to be double that which existed before the white conquest of North America. Excess deer will overbrowse forests, seriously harming the flora and thereby depriving other species of food and shelter.

How long before Friedrich is out front of the Sierra Club’s offices streaking to bring attention to the suffering of deer? Only time will tell.

Source:

Why I Hunt: Stalking wild game in a rugged landscape brings one environmentalist closer to nature. Rick Bass, Sierra Magazine, July 2001.

GLAAD’s Got A Nice Shakedown Scheme

So Kevin Smith goes on and on like the Energizer Bunny on his web site because the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation didn’t like his latest film, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back and intend to protest it. Smith complains that GLAAD doesn’t get the satirical nature of the film, etc.

But I lost all my sympathy for Smith when I reached this paragraph,

Anyway, I told Scott all of this during the course of our conversation, and asked what we could do to allay his (and GLAAD’s) fears. He said he’d be asking Miramax to make a substantial donation to the Matthew Shepherd Foundation (Matthew Shepherd is the Wyoming student who was beaten to death for being gay in one of the worst hate crimes in recent memory; the Foundation’s aim is to educate the public on the dangers of homophobia). I said I’d be happy to make a donation as well, as it’s a great cause, and one I believe in strongly. He asked how much I’d like to donate. I queried how much he intended to seek from Miramax. He said two hundred grand. I admitted I don’t have pockets as deep as Miramax. He suggested I donate ten grand, and I said “Done.”

Bad enough, but then Smith goes on to whine that after making his donation, GLAAD and the media are claiming, as Smith puts it, that “by giving ten thousand dollars to this worthy cause, I’m essentially saying “I’m sorry I made some gay jokes.” Duh!

What’s the point of doing something if you have so little faith in it that you’re willing to pay $10,000 to people who would just as soon shut down your work? I don’t remember Martin Scorsese offering to pay off Christians for the alleged slights in The Last Temptation of Christ.

And then to think the donation is not going to be portrayed as evidence of a guilty conscience? Give me a break. If a character like that existed in one of Smith’s movies he’d be portrayed as a naive buffoon.

Gee, I sure hope there isn’t anything politically incorrect in Smith’s Green Arrow gig.

Rigging Anti-Missile Tests

It turns out that, despite what critics thing, it is very easy to create a missile defense system that will target and destroy ICMBs. All you need to do is put make sure all of the incoming missiles are equipped with GPS beacons, much like the Pentagon did for it much-publicized “successful” test in mid-July.

But, then why stop there? Why not save $100 billion and simply ask any rogue nations out there to please give us a 72 hour notice before launching any surprise nuclear attack?

Newsweek ‘s Stem Cell Cover Story

I don’t agree with Joseph Sobran about abortion or stem cell research, but I think he’s got a valid point here about Newsweek‘s recent cover story on the stem cell controversy,

The cover featured a color photo of a cluster of human stem cells, hugely magnified. The point was obviously that these things don’t look like what we think of as a human being, so what’s the harm of killing them?

Mind you, Newsweek doesn’t always make use of audio-visual aids in discussing embryonic and fetal human life. In its coverage of late-term abortion, it has never used a color picture of a dismembered human fetus in the ninth month to shape public opinion.

By the ninth month, those little things do look pretty human, after all, and such a picture might, from Newsweek’s point of view, backfire. You don’t have to be a religious fanatic to recoil from seeing a baby torn to pieces.

Another Pay-Per-Email Fan

David Course, Executive Editor of ZDNET’s Anchor Desk is another advocate of a pay per e-mail charge to reduce spam. Since spam persists because much of the costs of spam is shared by recipients, Course writes,

I’ve thought about this a great deal and the best solution I see is one you aren’t going to like: require e-postage for e-mail. That is, charge people on a per-message basis for the e-mail they send.

This should not be a charge large enough to give people pause, maybe a penny or even a fraction of a cent…just enough to keep people from pushing the button and sending a million “Herbal Viagra” e-mails at a whack. Make the charge high enough and all junk mail and lots of personal/business mail (like all those cc:’s you get in the office) would also go away.

The problem with this proposal is that it doesn’t appear to be serious. Would this really deter businesses from sending 1 million copies of an “Herbal Viagra” e-mail? Considering that 1 million e-mails would only cost $10,000 under this proposal, I doubt it ($10,000 is as good as free to reach 1 million people).

You would need to have a much higher tax to really discourage spamming, but the higher the tax, the more you would also discourage other traffic.

In fact it is hardly surprising that the people who would really benefit from such a system are Course’s employers ZDNET. Course notes that a penny an e-mail tax would cost ZDNET about $75,000/week. That’s a cost that ZDNET might be able to absorb, but it would bring other businesses and web sites to their knees.

Anything that raises the cost of operating on the web simply privileges existing, larger businesses over smaller, newer ones.

New York’s Homeless Family Problem

If you’re a New York Times reporter assigned to do a story about the rising number of homeless families in the Big Apple, it is acceptable to blame the rise on the booming/faltering economy (take your pick), landlord’s unwillingness to rent to families qualifying for Section 8 housing, but of course the one thing that is absolutely out of bounds is to highlight the perverse effects of New York’s bizarre system of rent control which provides a disincentive to create new rental housing and makes it extremely difficult for poor people to compete for existing affordable housing.