Hunting Groups Climb On Board with Cap and Trade

A favorite pastime of hunters and groups that represent hunting is to slit their own wrists. We don’t need Wayne Pacelle when hunters are completely willing to off themselves. Study after study has shown that the primary impediment to people going hunting is the lack of places to hunt. With increasing sprawl, hunters and anglers find themselves having to go farther than farther out to find land to hunt and fish on. And what is the primary thing that lets hunters and anglers get to far away and remote places to hunt? Energy. Namely gasoline and diesel. So how is gasoline and diesel being a lot more expensive going to help hunters? That’s why I’m displeased more than a few hunting groups have signed on to the National Wildlife Federations mission to get crap and trade passed the Senate. For of you who are curious, the complete list of groups signing on can be found here (large PDF, warning):

  1. American Fisheries Society
  2. American Fly Fishing Trade Association
  3. American Sportfishing Association
  4. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
  5. Berkley Conservation Institute
  6. Campfire Club
  7. Dallas Safari Club
  8. Ducks Unlimited
  9. Houston Safari Club
  10. Izaak Walton League of America
  11. Mule Deer Foundation
  12. National Trappers Association
  13. National Wildlife Federation
  14. Pheasants Forever
  15. Quality Deer Management Association
  16. The Wildlife Society
  17. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
  18. Trout Unlimited
  19. Wildlife Forever
  20. Wildlife Management Institute

Only a few of these groups are actually hunting and fishing groups, but if you belong to any of them, I’d quit, and call them up and make sure you know why. They do not look after the interests of hunters. I can tell you in at least one of the cases, the Mule Deer Foundation, they are actively supporting HSUS’s attempts to restrict hunting. They are bad news for hunters.

5 thoughts on “Hunting Groups Climb On Board with Cap and Trade”

  1. Partly ignorance I’d guess.

    On the one hand, pollution (noxious chemicals and such introduced into the environment unnecessarily) is bad and it is right and proper for hunting organizations, which are inherently Conservationist, to be against such.

    But, on the other hand, “excess carbon” isn’t “pollution” per se, yet the same tropes and arguments are trotted out by the AGW crowd to conflate the two. So it is understandable why the less-informed or skeptical might buy into the “crisis”.

    However, on the gripping hand, a lot of those organizations are not “joe sixpack” hunting groups. Some won’t care about a few bucks more at the pump, or have access to private hunting clubs or lands (“already got mine” syndrome) or, as you say, are willing to push the other guy off the curb to protect their particular “sport of kings”.

  2. I don’t know much about cap and trade, but I’m wondering if it might not have an affect on sprawl? If developers would build housing/buildings at a higher density, it would cut down on the sprawl that we see now. Less sprawl means less gasoline used in general, and more land conserved.

    I wonder if that is why these groups are supporting cap and trade?

Comments are closed.