Tag: Stuart Chaifetz

Withdrawal of Bill to Reorganize NJ Fish and Game Council Angers Activist

The very brief life of New Jersey Senate Bill 2603 — which would have reorganized the New Jersey Fish and Game Council — had animal rights activist Stuart Chaifetz up in arms after animal rights activists apparently joined hunters groups in opposing the bill.

NJ Sen. Joseph Vitale (D) introduced the bill on May 29, and then withdrew it a couple weeks later on June 12. The bill would have expanded the size of the New Jersey Fish and Game Council from its current 11 members to 19 members.

Of the additional 8 members, one would have been filled by the state Commissioner of Environmental Protection, who the bill also would have granted authority that currently resides with the director of the Division of Fish and Wildlife. The other seven seats were to be reserved for “individuals with experience in environmental protection or other fields relevant to animal welfare and with a background in the conservation of fish and game.” I.e., this was a pretty blatant effort to pack the council with activists and take other measures to shift the balance away from hunters and towards activists.

As the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance summed it up,

The bill essentially guts the authority of the Fish and Game Council, and gives it to the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. It specifically grants the Commissioner the authority to suspend hunting seasons without a public hearing or the consent of the Fish and Game Council. All changes and decisions made by the council will have to be approved by the Commissioner as well.

That hunters opposed this is not surprising, but according to animal rights activist Stuart Chaifetz, animal rights activists also expressed their opposition to the bill to Sen. Vitale. In a letter posted to an animal rights e-mail list, Chaifetz complained (emphasis added),

Earlier today I found out that Senator Vitale, Co-Prime sponsor of the legislation to radically change the Council, is pulling his name from the bill. Why? Because he has been getting opposition to the bill from hunters and animal rights people.

Yes, that is no mistake. Animal rights people (I will not grant them such a caring title anymore) joined with hunters to kill S2603.

Now why would these people do such a thing? Why would people who claim to care about wildlife try to destroy the greatest chance wild animals have?

In my opinion, seeing much of the opposition, I can relate the following theories: Some didn’t like the fact that there would only be seven additional seats on the Council (Only seven after six decades of none). Some said that they were afraid that the seats might not go to hardcore anti-hunters. Some claimed in sheer idiocy that this bill would hurt the bears when the truth is it would have saved them. How? By the nature of the bill it drew all of the focus of the hunters to it, leaving a clear path for the bear campaign. With it gone, hunters can now re-focus 100% on getting their bear hunt. The irony is sickening.

I know of one specific person who spread absolute lies about what this bill would do, and can imagine that they and a few choice others were upon the shoulders of many more, whispering these things into there ears. And there were other reasons as well, I am sure, for many are often locked into a box and refuse to see it. None of these people could see what we could do with this bill. And it is the animals that shall pay the price for this.

These people, and I believe they are not large in number, did not try to work to amend the bill or offer any ideas on how to make it better, but instead entered into a campaign of fierce harassment, not only against the sponsor of the bill but against any one from our side ho supported the bill.

A small handful of animal rights activists spreading lies and engaging in a campaign of harassment based on those lies? Imagine that!

The full text of NJ Senate Bill 2603 is available here.

Sources:

New Jersey Bill Threatens Future of Outdoor Sports. Press Release, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, June 6, 2003.

The disgrace of a few ‘activists’ — sponsor pulls name from Council reform bill. E-mail communication, Stuart Chaifetz, June 13, 2003.

The Denouement to the Princeton Deer Hunt

For the past couple years there’s been on ongoing controversy over attempts by Princeton Township (New Jersey) to reduce the size of the deer herd. Princeton has brought in sharpshooters in the past, endured failed lawsuits trying to stop it from carrying out the deer cull, and generally been the focus of the ongoing debate about dealing with deer in urban and suburban areas.

The whole episode took another interesting turn in January when one of the opponents of the Princeton hunting plans switched sides, much to the consternation of animal rights activists who complained they had been betrayed.

A group called Hunters Advocate had opposed the plan to kill the deer with sharpshooters and captive-bolt guns. Led by Robert Kubiak, Hunters Advocate had worked along side animal rights groups such as the League of Animal Protection Voters to oppose the sharpshooters.

But in January, Kubiak’s attorney Falk Engel presented a plan to the Princeton Township board to replace the sharpshooters and captive-bolt guns with a program of coordinated bow hunting. Princeton Township largely rejected Kubiak’s proposal — it will continue to seek sharpshooters and captive-bolt gun methods — but it did modify its plan to address complaints from hunters who felt the previous plan unfairly denied them the ability to hunt game.

Under the revised plan, Princeton Township agreed not to cull deer on any private lands that are under contract with hunting clubs. The revised plan also agreed to work with hunters to investigate opening up some public lands for private hunters during the 2003-2004 hunting season.

Stuart Chaifetz of the League of Animal Protection Voters was outraged at Kubiak’s sudden about-face. In an e-mail posted to an animal rights e-mail list, Chaifetz cited comments by Kubiak in support of bow hunting and wrote,

What we have here is a textbook case of how compromise, working with the enemy and an unwillingness to take a hard stand for the animals leads to the bloody destruction of those animals. It is a shameful thing that should never have been allowed to happen. Any of you who attended the “celebration” fund raisers at Princeton, which may have funded this man, should demand your money back.

In the last few years there has been a rush to the “center” in the fight for wiild [sic] animals. By this I mean taking a non-offensive stance (because we just can’t afford to offend anyone) and compromise on issues (because we just can’t be seen as being radical animal rights activists).

. . .

This is a cautionary tale: Move closer to the enemy, join with the enemy, and sleep with the enemy, and when you wake up you will find that you have become the enemy.

Similarly, Angi Metler of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance told The Princeton Packet,

We are appalled and will not be party to any collaboration between hunters and attorneys calling for anyone to kill deer in Princeton or anywhere else.

The activists were likely even further appalled when the state Fish and Game Council approved the revised plan in a 7-2 vote — it had previously rejected other plans put forward by the Township. Of course by that time, Kubiak had once again switched sides and was voicing his opposition to the deer cull saying there was no justification for continuing the program.

Stay tuned for the exciting next episode in the Princeton Township deer cull saga. This is likely to be a stewing issue for years.

Sources:

Animal-rights advocates slam bow-hunting proposal. David Campbell, The Princeton Packet, January 31, 2003.

Princeton deer betrayed by lawyer. Stuart Chaifetz, e-mail, January 29, 2003.

Princeton Township stands firm on deer-plan removal. David Campbell, The Princeton Packet, January 28, 2003.

Animal-rights group fights deer plan on the airwaves. Gwen Runkle, The Princeton Packet, February 11, 2003.

Game council drops opposition to Princeton deer control plan. Newsday, February 16, 2003.

No Bow Hunting on Sundays?

One of the most ridiculous appeals this writer has seen from an animal rights group was issued recently by the League of Animal Protection Voters which wants to make certain that bow hunters in New Jersey cannot kill deer on Sundays.

Apparently, at the moment it is illegal to bow hunt on Sundays in New Jersey, which is absurd. I’ve heard of places where you can’t buy alcohol on Sundays, but hunt? Stuart Chaifetz, a co-founder of the League of Animal Protection Voters, claims that the ban on Sunday bow hunting is needed because Sunday is, “The only day in which they [families] have to walk peacefully on our woods.” Chaifetz notes that two people were recently killed in hunting accidents in New Jersey.

But if the goal is to save the lives of innocent people just trying to enjoy themselves, New Jersey would be better off banning a truly dangerous activities like swimming on Sundays, rather than bow hunting.

The League of Animal Protection Voters’ real agenda, of course, is an outright ban on hunting, period. In its press release opposing a bill that would eliminate the no hunting on Sundays rule, the LAPV argues that,

Bow hunting is barbaric entertainment that best deserves to reside in the dark ages, not in the 21st century and not in a country that deems itself humane. We must not only defeat the Sunday hunting bill, but we must as a people turn our eye and conscience to this most bloody and unnatural ‘sport’ and defeat it as well.

Source:

League exposes brutality of bow hunting, opposes bill that allows bow hunters to kill on Sundays. League of Animal Protection Voters, December 6, 2001.