Wisconsin's Mourning Dove Hunt Reports More Than 200,000 Birds Killed

In January, Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources estimated that the state’s recent mourning dove hunt resulted in about 202,000 of the birds being killed during the 60-day season.

A survey of hunters who bought small game hunting licenses found that 8 percent of hunters in the state participated in the mourning dove season, and that on average they killed 8 mourning doves apiece.

Keith Warnke, a game bird ecologist with the Wisconsin DNR, says that level of participation was roughly what the DNR expected and that the number of birds killed was sustainable. Warnke told the Associated Press,

I am confident that this level of harvest will not have a negative impact on the state’s dove population, and that the new dove hunting tradition will improve mourning dove knowledge and conservation in Wisconsin.

Meanwhile, Wisconsin Citizens Concerned for Cranes and Doves had its arguments against the hunt heard by the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The group argues that when the Wisconsin legislature declared the mourning dove the state’s official symbol of peace in 1971, that it conferred special protections on the bird which the DNR failed to take into account in allowing the hunting season.

Wisconsin Assistant Attorney General P. Philip Peterson, countered that, “There is no link between what the Legislature did then and the authority the DNR so clearly has to set a season for mourning doves.”

The Wisconsin State Supreme Court is expected to rule before July 1 on the challenge to the hunting season.

Sources:

State’s first hunt culls 202,000 mourning doves. Associated Press, January 22, 2004.

Dove hunting opponents argue case to Supreme Court. Amy Rinard, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 15, 2004.

PETA Angry Over Hillary Clinton's New Mink Coat

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals vented its displeasure at news that Sen. Hillary Clinton recently had a new mink coat made for her by Manhattan furrier Peter Duffy. PETA released a press release saying,

After several twists and turns, denials, and a cover-up, Senator Clinton’s staff has now admitted that she has a new fur coat. Perhaps she has forgotten that every year, millions of animals, including rabbits, minks, foxes, and raccoons, are trapped in the wild in barbaric steel-jaw leghold traps. Those who don’t freeze or starve are usually beaten to death, jumped on to crush their ribs and lungs, or suffocated. Animals, particularly mother animals anxious to reach their helpless young, have even been known to endure the pain of chewing off their own limbs in order to free themselves from traps. And of course, fur farms are just as hideous. After months of fear and being confined to crowded, filthy cages, suffering extreme weather conditions and unbearable stress, the animals are forcibly removed from the cages and killed by suffocation, neck-breaking, or genital electrocution. Sometimes, these methods only stun—not kill—the animals, who end up being skinned alive.

Apparently when originally contacted by PETA, Clinton’s staffers decided to claim that the coat was actually velvet — a story that was quickly contradicted in a number of New York-area newspapers.

In fact, Clinton staffers ultimately confessed in January that,

The senator has owned a mink coat for 25 years, and because it was worn, she traded it in.

Sources:

Hillary mink mystery solved. New York Post, January 19, 2004.

Urge Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to Stop the Violence. Press Release, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, undated.

Transcript of Kucinich Address to Animal Rights 2003

FARM recently posted a transcript of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich’s address to Animal Rights 2003 in California. For some reason, Kucinich leaves out his plans to suck up to dairy farmers and others while campaigning in Iowa,

IÂ’m very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you today, and I want to begin by saluting each and every one of you individually for your personal commitment to animal rights, and for what that commitment represents for yourselves as individuals, and for who you are in the world.

We realize that we are in a world which truly needs compassion – that we need to extend compassion to one another and to everything living. And that our cause can truly be to lift up this world from a condition of suffering and cruelty to all creatures of this planet. And through elevating the cause of every creature, we elevate our own humanity. We lift up the cause of humanity by reaching out and connecting with all things living. It is our sense of interconnection with all living things that brings us to respect the rights of animals. That we understand that animals are not to be ‘lower than.’ That animals should not have less of a claim to existence, less of a claim to the possibility of survival, less of a claim to dignity.

Your commitment translates into specific action in raising the questions that must be raised about the use of animals in research, in raising the questions that must be raised about the use of animals in testing, in looking at the conditions in which animals are placed on farms. About challenging a corporate ethic which sees animals as things to be exploited and not beings which in and of themselves have some basic rights.

So your presence here serves as a reminder to this country that our presence on this planet has a higher calling. That we can, through our activism, lift up the cause of the humblest beings. That we can, through our activism, open up not only our own hearts but the hearts of people everywhere, so that our society can become more compassionate. So that our society can be more loving. So that our society can create policies which are caring for animals. Every one of us knows a story of animal cruelty. Every one of us knows how in one way or another, official policies have sanctioned cruelty to animals.

I will work with you to put compassion into action in our policies with respect to animals in this country. And I will work with you to have America set a higher standard, not only for this country, but for the world to make sure that all of godÂ’s creatures, that all animals, are given a chance to have dignity in our society, and are given a chance to experience the appreciation they should have as living beings.

About eight and a half years ago, I had the chance to make a transition in my own life, in terms of my own diet. And as someone who had a somewhat conventional diet, I learned that the choices I was making could be brought more in resonance more with who I felt that I was. And when I moved from a more conventional diet to a pretty much a vegan diet –a combination of, for me, vegetarianism, veganism, and a macrobiotic diet — I discovered a number of things that I share with people, because they ask me about it when I go around the country. I experienced better health, first of all, a renewed sense of energy and vitality, and also a greater appreciation for the choices that any individual makes that have an impact on sustainability of our world. Because what all of us stand for here really connects to the deeper issues of sustainability, of survival, of not just our species, but of all species. Because we understand this interconnection, this web of life that connects us to everything. We begin to understand how the choices each one of us makes every day influences the choices of the world. As we choose, so chooses the world. This is true when we are elevating the cause of a species, and itÂ’s also true when we elevate the cause of our planet.

As the next President of the United States I intend to amplify the concerns that are expressed here by leading the way towards total nuclear disarmament and abolition. I intend to have the United States rejoin the world community by signing the Biological Weapons Convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Small Arms Treaty, the Land Mine Treaty, join the International Criminal Court, and sign the Kyoto Climate Change Treaty. I intend to take this country away from unilateralism and pre-emption and first-strike doctrines to re-embrace the world in a cause of world peace. We can create a new world, and we will.

This calling which brings you here today, this calling which excites your heart, moves your spirit to lift up the cause of all species, is a calling that we can make the calling of the world, as we call the world to connect in a great effort to once and for all work to make war itself archaic. We need to challenge the people of the nations of the world, and the leaders of the nations of the world, to help elevate the condition of this planet – to let go of war, to let go of the kind of suffering which war machines have created. We have to believe in our capacity to evolve. We have to believe in the capacity of this nation to create a new world.

This policy of creating a Department of Peace relates directly to such an undertaking. It relates to our capacity to make nonviolence an organizing principle in our society. What you stand for is the essence of nonviolence – is making sure that those who are the least able to defend themselves, the animals of our world, are going to be treated compassionately, and without having to suffer violence.

This is the time that I believe we can catch this impulse – we’re at an evolutionary moment – we can catch this evolutionary impulse to create a society which will work to make nonviolence an organizing principle. And we can do it in policies here at home, we can do it in policies working with nations of the world, we can do it so that we will be the people who created a new era – an era of peace, an era of justice, an era where we elevate the cause of all humanity and all species.

This is the time. You are the ones weÂ’ve been waiting for. Thank you!

Hypocrisy from Gay Marriage Supporter

Human Rights Campaign president Cheryl Jacques did a nice job of making my major point about gay marriage — that many of those supporting gay marriage are hypocrites unwilling to take their views to their logical outcome.

Here’s a partial transcript of Jacques appearance on Crossfire on Feb. 24 (emphasis added),

TUCKER CARLSON: I beg your pardon. I want to — I want to ask you a question. And I want you to answer it. No one ever answers this question. And perhaps you will.

The standards that the Massachusetts Supreme Court set was intimacy. People are intimate, share intimacy, they deserve to be married. Why draw the line at two people, say? Why shouldn’t a group of three men, for instance, by that standard, be able to be married? It’s an honest question. I’d like an honest answer, please.

CHERYL JACQUES: Here’s an honest answer. Tucker, I’m raising two sons. I want them to be in love with a committed partner. I want them to have a family. I want grandchildren. I want them to take care of each other. I want them to share each other’s health insurance. I want, when one of them dies, the other one to be able to receive Social Security survivor benefits, because they’ll pay into it, as I do.

CARLSON: OK, but you haven’t answered the question yet.

JACQUES: I just answered it.

CARLSON: No, no, why not three?

JACQUES: I want two committed parents, like every family.

CARLSON: But why deny the right of free people

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: Because I don’t approve of that.

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Why don’t you approve of it?

PAUL BEGALA: Who is asking for it?

SEN. J.D. HAYWORTH: Well, I’ll tell you who is asking for it.

JACQUES: The American Pediatrics Association, all the leading groups say two committed parents.

CARLSON: But give me a reason. I don’t understand.

(CROSSTALK)

JACQUES: That’s what makes for a healthy family and a loving family and that’s what I want.

For Jacques, the standard for marriage then is whether or not she approves of a particular permutation of consenting adults who might choose to get married.

So now we see a clear difference between opponents and proponents of gay marriage. Many of those opposed to gay marriage argue should not be allowed because they don’t approve of it. Jacques and other supporters of gay marriage don’t think polygamous marriage should be allowed because they don’t approve of it.

They’re all one big happy family.

Could a Defense of Marriage Amendment Become Part of the Constitution?

Dave Winer absurdly claims that an amendement to the Constitution defining marriage as being between one woman and one man could never be adopted,

The hot story today is the President’s call to amend the US Constitution to prevent gay marriage. You heard it here first: It won’t pass. It can’t.

But the reasons Winer gives make little sense.

Homosexuality is becoming fairly accepted in the US.

Yes, but gay marriage is not “fairly accepted.” National polls show Americans oppose gay marriage by roughly a 2-1 margin. That number tends to increase rather than decrease when gay marriage is actually in the news.

Winer continues,

This amendment won’t pass anywhere outside the Deep South.

In order for an amendment to succeed after making it out of Congress, it would have to be adopted by 38 states. Care to guess how many states have passed laws that define marriage as only between one man and one woman?

That’s right, boys and girls, 38.

And the idea that opposition to gay marriage is a Southern issue only is ridiculous. Ohio adopted an anti-gay marriage law just a few weeks ago.

Which is not to say that the gay marriage amendment is likely to become adopted. Getting any amendment through is difficult, and while polls show that Americans oppose gay marriage, they are not very keen on this sort of amendment either. Currently polls show about 49 percent of Americans opposed to such an amendment.

But that’s doesn’t necessarily mean the amendment is doomed. Remember, the amendment needs 38 states, not 50 percent of the vote. It is very likely that a disproporationate number of pro-gay marriage voters are located in a very small number of states, such as California or Massachussetts. Just as George W. Bush was able to win the White House without winning a popular majority, so could an anti-gay marriage amendment be adopted even if a slight majority of Americans oppose it.

Personally, I suspect the biggest obstacle to such an amendment will be getting it past Congress. Democrats will likely adopt John Kerry’s bizarre position that he is against gay marriage but that an amendment banning gay marriage would be “divisive.”