Animal Rights Activists Support Commercial Killing of Wildlife
Repeating Pattern Started in 1996 Ballot Question
BOSTON – On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife held a public hearing. The purpose of the hearing was to gather public comment on potential regulations regarding “wanton waste” and banning “predator hunting contests. The proposed regulations came as a result of significant political pressure. The pressure was caused by a group of so-called animal rights people who became upset over two coyote contests on Cape Cod. From the moment the proposed regulations were released to the public, Gun Owners’ Action League (GOAL) had great concerns about them.
“The greatest irony of the wanton waste portion of the proposal is that it specifically exempts the commercial killing and wasting of so-called problem animals, said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “Either the animal rights groups are against the wasting of animals or they are not. Why are they ok if it is done commercially?”
The wanton waste portion of the regulations will undoubtably bring about the killing and wasting by profitable entities just as Question One did over twenty years ago. Question One was a ballot initiative in 1996 that banned the most effective traps used by licensed trappers. As a result, the population explosion of mainly beavers and muskrat led to considerable damage of private property and roads. Then, the animal rights groups’ solution was to support the special permitting through public health agencies. These special permits allowed commercial entities to use the banned traps to kill the animals and dispose of the them. Since these companies are exempt from the normal reporting requirements, the agency in charge of wildlife management has no idea how many animals are taken and what is done with them.
“For almost a century sportsmen and women successfully fought to ban the commercial killing of wildlife,” said Wallace. “Then enters the animals rights crowd and they bring it back with thunderous support. I guess their objective is to eventually ban licensed hunters and replace us with paid killers.”
Replacing citizen hunters and trappers with commercial entities is not an example of the successful North American model for professional wildlife management. If Massachusetts wildlife professionals truly believe there is enough evidence of wanton waste to address it through additional regulations, then it must include all animals taken regardless of special permits or not. Further, it should require the same reporting requirements that citizen hunters and trappers must follow. Bringing back the commercial killing of wildlife is shameful and should not be supported by the general public.