Democratic Senator Earl Garrison of Oklahoma is pushing for a Hunters Bill of Rights that would help “protect” hunters and fishermen from animal rights activists. Apparently he is fearful that animal rights activists will intrude upon “Oklahoma traditions” and take advantage of the current wording of the state’s constitution. Some “sound” bites from Mr. Garrison himself follow, enjoy!
“We’re trying to put in our constitution the right for Oklahomans to hunt, fish and trap like we always have,” he said. “This will protect our children and grandchildren’s ability to hunt and fish like we always have in Oklahoma. I think it’s a good thing because most hunters and fishers are conservationists first.”
How many fishermen and hunters do you know that are big on conservation? Sure they may use it as an excuse to do what they enjoy, aka murder innocent creatures who have no means of fighting back, but they are not doing it for true conservation. Plus in my book a conservationalist would be concerned about the conservation of the earth in general….which would imply recycling, vegetarianism, bike riding/mass transit use and a plethora of other tiny acts to protect the planet. I dare say most hunters/fishermen do not fall into this category (and definitely not the vegetarian category).
“For most Oklahomans it’s a heritage we can pass on to our children and grandchildren,” he said. “Hunters are some of the most sensitive people in the world; they understand the value of passing this on to the next generations.”
Hunters are some of the most sensitive people in the world? What planet does this guy live on? Are you kidding me?!? Sensitive? Perhaps sensitive to their own needs and wants but it ends there. Also, why do they feel the need to pass down the “value” of death and violence towards other creatures on this planet? Can you answer that question, oh sensitive one?
“And you never know when extremist groups might come in and say this is not a good thing,” he said. “I think there is some fear that some groups will make it against the law to even hunt and fish because they think it’s cruel to animals.”
What a wonderful world it would be if we animal rights activists could just come in and say ” No hunting! No fishing!” and have it be done. I want to live in that world. Unfortunately that is beyond impossible at this stage of the animal rights movement. Not nearly enough people care about other animals enough to deem hunting and fishing be eliminated. It is hard enough to get people to stop wearing fur or to stop testing on animals for useless products, like Botox. Oh and Garrison, it IS a bad thing. Get over your need for weekend bloodbaths already.
“Animals have to be harvested,” he said. “And if you have good management, and that’s what the Oklahoma Wildlife Commission does, it’s important that you have management because if you don’t, you get overpopulation, and the animals get smaller and there’s too much inbreeding.”
Harvested? HARVESTED? Now that doesn’t sound like a sensitive conservationalist said that to me. Well in that one phrase Mr. Garrison makes it clear how he feels about animals: they are mere commodities. Is that sensitive? I think not. Also, the conservationalist in him does acknowledge a potential increase in population due to the lack of hunting, however he deems this unwanted because the animals would be smaller, aka less attractive on the mantle I suppose. *Note: Whereas the decrease or elimination of hunting would cause some animal populations to increase, nature would even out if predator/prey numbers were able to attain the correct balance. This has been a major problem since hunting/fishing/general killing/territory encroachment has increased. Prey species increase because predators are killed or do not have enough territory etc. How do you think the planet existed without hunting before humans existed/decided to kill other creatures? Hmm? Yeah, I think nature has a handle on what it needs to do.