In an Article in Feedstuffs magazine, Phillip Lobo details how the Humane Society of the United States is an Animal Rights Organization that threatens animal agriculture.

HSUS does not operate animal shelters. The American Humane Assn. does. There is a difference. It is big.

 The current anti-agriculture activities of HSUS can be divided into six areas. The four that are currently most influential are:

• National legislative and regulatory initiatives;
• State legislative and regulatory initiatives;
• City and county legislative and regulatory initiatives, and
• Consumer outreach campaigns

Trent Loos, a fellow advocate for agriculture, brought Carrie Underwood’s ties to the radical organization to light in his article, and his blog column as well.

I would hope that by now it is not news to anybody that HSUS has a direct mission to abolish animal agriculture and end hunting in this country. As recently as last week Miyun Park, Vice President of Farm Animal Welfare, openly stated their mission: “to get rid of the industry”. The Center for Consumer Freedom reports HSUS’s true mission is to spend millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics.

Now the US Sportman’s Alliance has alerted me to the fact that Carrie Underwood plans to give a portion of the proceeds to this organization that is in direct opposition to those of us who take an active role in our food chain.

Sportsmen should contact Fox Broadcasting, the company that airs American Idol, immediately.

They should be told that country music star Carrie Underwood’s rendition of “Home Sweet Home” isn’t so sweet for the millions of sportsmen who will be attacked by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) after they make money off the tune.

According to Carrie Underwood’s official website, the song is going to be used each week on the hit television show when a contestant is voted off.

Unfortunately, Underwood has made clear that a portion of the proceeds from subsequent sales of that song will go to benefit the largest anti-hunting organization in the nation, HSUS. This will give HSUS even more money to direct towards hunters, anglers, and trappers nationwide.

“Carrie Underwood has decided to use her talents to benefit an organization dedicated to destroying the rights of thousands of her fans,” said U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) senior vice president, Rick Story. “HSUS does not operate or oversee animal shelters; it is a radical organization that seeks to end hunting and other responsible uses of animals in America.”

Story said that sportsmen must send American Idol a strong message that its indirect support of HSUS, is not appreciated.

Sportsmen can make a difference. Companies such as Iams, General Mills, Accor Hotels, Pet Safe, Sears, Meijer Inc, and Ace Hardware ended relationships with HSUS after thousands of sportsmen levied strong protest.

Take Action! Sportsmen are urged to contact key personnel at American Idol’s parent company, Fox Broadcasting and demand that Underwood’s song not be given a stage to raise money for HSUS. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.
801 Kingsmill Parkway
Columbus, Ohio 4322929
614-888-4868
www.ussportsmen.org
info@ussportsmen.org
For more information regarding the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alert Network, call 614-888-4868, or email Greg R. Lawson, director of communications at glawson@ussportsmen.org or Sharon Hayden, assistant director of communications data at shayden@ussportsmen.org.

Mr. Peter Liguori
Fox Broadcasting Company
Chairman of Entertainment
10201 West Pico Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90064-2606

Fax: 310-369-1283
Phone: 310-369-3553
Also, e-mail the show at idol.web@fox.com.

 

Nearly 80% felt that it was a way of life.  So it comes as no surprise to me that todays society may not as a whole be as likely to participate in an activity that so wholely envelopes one’s mindset, habits, social circle and has a level of committment unmatched by most leisure time activities. 

Statistics say that there are fewer hunters now than 10, 20, 50 years ago based on license sales nation wide.  Is it because we as a nation are satisfied with second hand activities?  Those activities where we are bystanders and fans.

More and more I see people who spend their free time as a fan of NASCAR, the NFL, NCAA,and Major League Baseball.  They garner enjoyment from watching others succeed.  While I enjoy these activities my self, I would much rather take an active part in something.  Perhaps that is why Hunting is more than a hobby to me.  I am a participant regardless of my skill level, I can get out there, and “Just DO It “ .( To quote a shoe company whose main marketing is to sports fans.)

Would being called a hobby hunter make you :

Offended, Hunting is my career  0%  [ 0 ] Insulted, I am a hunter it is a way of life  76%  [ 19 ] Mildly annoyed, Hunting is more than a hobby.  16%  [ 4 ] Ambivilent, I like to hunt just as much as I like to do other activities  0%  [ 0 ] Honored, Someone knows I like to hunt  8%  [ 2 ] What, I don’t hunt! where do they get their information?  0%  [ 0 ]

Total Votes : 25

So I felt that putting down a list of “Rules of Etiquette” for the Western Hunter might be appropriate. Feel free to add your thoughts in the Comments section below.

• Hunting Spots- While there are millions of acres of public land to hunt, it takes a lot of effort to find one that is consistently productive, where you don’t have to compete with other hunters. We find these spots through a combination of time scouting and researching as well as talking with other hunters. If someone is kind enough to take you to a spot to hunt, you are obligated to NOT bring another person there, or tell others the location unless it is with the expressed permission of your original host.   Now a casual conversation with another hunter, not necessarily a friend, who lets slip a good location is simply doing your homework. A cold beverage, to the right person at the trailhead has gotten me information I might not have found so quickly on my own.
• Other hunters- On occasion there will be other hunters near where you hunt. If they get out on the trail ahead of you then they have first right to their destination. Now if you can pass them on the trail and get ahead then you have first right. If you don’t want to lose out, then leave early.  If you are stalking a buck, and discover another hunter moving in then the closer hunter with the wind in their face has first right. In the absence of a wind, usually the hunter on the uphill side has a better chance of sealing the deal and the downhill hunter should break off the stalk without disturbing the quarry.
• Camping spots – Except in developed trailhead campgrounds, always camp out of sight of other camps in the back country. They are there for solitude, not company. Backpackers should leave large flat horse camps to groups with horses, and use more compact campsites where available. Outfitters on public land actually pay a fee for each of their campsites and are within the law to evict other campers there.
• Successful hunters- you are not obligated to give a full accounting of where you were successful. Vague responses are preferred to outright lies and deception. They should warn other folks where their gut piles are if it might attract bears. Likewise if an aggressive bear is encountered, then other campers/hunters and fishermen should be warned.
• Loose horses- that have obviously escaped (saddle still on) should be caught and tied to a tree in an open spot along the trail. Chances are that the rider will be coming down the trail looking for it. If you have neighboring camps be sure to ask if they recognize the horse. There may be an injured rider in the hills. If a horse wanders into camp without halter bridle or saddle, you might want to catch it just to keep it out of your feed anyway. Alert a USFS or BLM employee if the animal is not claimed .
• Visiting Camps- should only be done when the camp is occupied.  Don’t partake in any hospitality you are not willing to return.  Many a camp cook will offer conversation and a cup of coffee during the middle of the day.  Don’t stop by during meal time and expect to be fed.  That is the mark of a mooch. 
• Emergencies- take precedence over a hunt. You should do your level best to help sick or injured people in the backcountry. This includes first aid, going for help, or assisting lost hikers. By the same token you should go into the back country well prepared for the weather and the appropriate equipment for your trip.

It is my hope that these backcountry rules of etiquette will help you in your trips afield in the upcoming seasons.

HSUS sees “compassionate stand,” but ag groups see “vilification of farmers.”

- Prop 2 may be detrimental to animal health.

- AVMA urges state regulators to involve scientists, vets in rulemaking.

By ROD SMITH

CALIFORNIA voters passed the ballot initiative on farm animal housing last week, with almost 66% of voters supporting the measure.

The initiative essentially will close down the commercial egg industry in California, affecting 95% of egg production in the state, and will leave California consumers dependent on eggs shipped in from other states and possibly from Canada and Mexico.

The ban becomes effective in January 2015.

The initiative was carried to the ballot by petition last spring by a coalition of animal activist groups led by Farm Sanctuary and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Farm Sanctuary and HSUS advocate animal rights, and HSUS openly promotes vegetarianism.

HSUS chief executive officer and president Wayne Pacelle, in a brief statement last Tuesday night, declared that California voters took “a stand for compassion and decency and said systematic mistreatment of animals cannot continue. All animals deserve humane treatment, including animals raised for food.”…

Click here for the full story from Feedstuffs Magazine

Phillip asks…

What is “fair chase” and how important is it as a consideration, both to you as a hunter, and overall to the sport of hunting?  Where do you draw the lines and why?  I encourage you to think your responses through, not only from a personal perspective but from a bigger picture.  Consider the logical progression of your ideas.

For simplicity’s sake, I feel that Fair Chase is the statement that is the basis of the Pope and Young and Boone and Crockett clubs.  They developed it and put it in writing and are taking the message to hunters around the country.  The Fair Chase statement signed by each person who submits a big game animal to the records program reads:

Simply defined, fair chase is the ethical, sportsmanlike, and lawful pursuit of free-ranging wild game animals in a manner which does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the animal. [emphasis added by author]

The Rules of Fair Chase

The term “Fair Chase” shall not include the taking of animals under the following conditions:

• Helpless in a trap, deep snow or water, or on ice.
• From any power vehicle or power boat.
• By “jacklighting” or shining at night.
• By the use of any tranquilizers or poisons.
• While inside escape-proof fenced enclosures.
• By the use of any power vehicle or power boats for herding or driving animals, including use of aircraft to land alongside or to communicate with or direct a hunter on the ground.
• By the use of electronic devices for attracting, locating or pursuing game or guiding the hunter to such game, or by the use of a bow or arrow to which any electronic device is attached.
• Any other condition considered by the Board of Directors as unacceptable.

I don’t feel that all animals need to be hunted under those conditions. However I am willing to hunt within those guidelines for the 28 species of big game that those organizations recognize. In my personal opinion, there are animals exempt from fair chase . Those include “varmints” that pose a threat to the health, safety, and well being of my family, domestic animals, livelihood and loved ones.

I am more than glad to have an unfair advantage over disease carrying rodents, and coyotes who prey on newborn calves, fawns and lambs.  I wouldn’t give a black widow spider a “sporting chance” in my shed.  I would have no compunction in eliminating a badger digging holes in my horse pasture that could break a leg.  However  in the desert of southern Idaho or the mountains of Wyoming, I would leave these creatures alone to do their part in the ecosystem. 

Fair chase however extends to other “sport hunting” beyond the 28 big game species.  Even small game, may have the tenets of sportsmanship applied to them, for this is how we mold young sportsmen into mature capable hunters.  An example would be shooting birds on the fly.  Most every one would agree with the sportingness of that with a shot gun, but harvest by an arrow, or a headshot with a .22 any less sporting? This ethic varies by person and situation.  I wouldn’t expect someone who is hunting for subsistance to abide by the rules of fair chase.  however I would expect them to use their kills to the fullest extent possible.  so as you can see “it depends”.

 In his second question Phillip asks:

How effective are sport hunters at managing game populations, e.g. wild hogs, whitetail deer, snow geese, etc.?  Are we doing the job we say we’re doing?  What does it mean to our justification of sport hunting as a management tool?  If you have specific details to support your responses, that would be a great addition to the discussion (and possibly save me some research later). 

In regard to sport hunting’s effectiveness as a management tool, I feel that it is the only cost effective way to manage a steady native wildlife population within the carrying capacity of a given habitat. While areas without sport hunting have a predator-prey relationship, the populations have a much more severe boom and bust cycles.

Sport hunting can provide a cashflow to fund wildlife departments, while also allowing for a restriction or expansion of seasons and tags to reflect game and habitat conditons. It is not feasible with other large predators. Goverment funded sharpshooters to control game animals provides only an expense, and no income to the state or municipality.

Sport hunting also gives value to the wildlife population. When small community economies benifit from the influx of out of area hunters, wildlife becomes an income stream for people who might otherwise view them as a crop eating pest, or road hazard.  That is how impoverished countries in Africa have re-established wildlife populations and stemmed the tide of poaching.  Simply put , the tourism dollars from sport hunting, and to a smaller extent wildlife watching, has encouraged conservation in cultures who did not previously understand or value this concept. 

Sport hunting also provides a collection method for specimans for monitoring wildlife disease. The spread of CWD would be less known if it were not for voluntary CWD testing by sport hunters. When, and if, we find Avian Influenza in wild birds, my bet it will be from vigilance of sport hunters in the migration corridors despite Fish and Wildlifes monitoring program that is strapped by financial and logistics issues that come with goverment programs. 

 However, because of the fair chase ethic that permeates the majority of the sport hunting populace, we as sport hunters are unable to effectively do some of the distasteful aspects of wildlife mangement that are required.  The example that Phillip brings to light is the elimination of feral species from certain habitats.  As sport hunters we are conditioned from our earliest experiences, to spare females and young.  It is the Conservation Ethic at work.  Few hunters are willing to do that morally daunting task, whether it is beavers in the suburbs, feral hogs, or even feral cats and dogs.  That is the place for a paid individual or group to eliminate, trap or relocate the offenders. 

I think most hunters are proud to have the priviledge of taking an active role in the management of America’s wildlife populations.  The fact that their license fees and excise taxes pay for goverment wildlife programs and habitat improvement gives hunters a vested interest in the well being of game populations. 

I would be interested top read others views on the subject.

The following excerpt is from an Outdoorlife.com article on the subject of the “spider bull” as he is known.

“Denny Austad didn’t have to draw the super-selective Monroe Mountain tag because he bought a Utah governor’s tag for elk this season, reportedly paying $170,000 for the ability to hunt any open unit in the state. Some hunters are dismissing the achievement because Austad had the ability to hunt with a rifle during a season when other elk hunters were relegated to archery equipment. So what? That’s the appeal of the governor’s tag, and Austad’s investment in the license will go toward elk management in a state that has become the best big-bull destination in the country.”

The purpose for State Wildlife agencies to offer tags to organizations with a proven track record of wildlife conservation and habitat restoration is to raise money to go back into wildlife programs.  Usually this money is raised through auctions of the coveted tags.  Last year, in Utah, Safari Club International received $50,000 for a bighorn sheep permit, $13,000 for a mule deer permit, $13,000 for an elk tag,and $3500 each for two black bear tags.  That is $83,000 for the SCI chapter of Utah to put into habitat and conservation. 

Utah’s Conservation tags are unique in the fact that they are distributed to conservation groups for sale either by sealed bid, live or silent auction.  Organizations that offer the tags for auction include:  Ducks Unlimited, Foundation for North American Wild Sheep, Mule Deer Foundation, National Wild Turkey Foundation,  Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Safari Club International, Sportsmen for Habitat, and the Utah Bowmens Association.  For a complete list of Utah Conservation tags, CLICK HERE

The question is raised;  If someone has been applying for an opportunity like this for years, then why is it fair to let someone “Buy their way” to the front of the line?    

Disenfranchised hunters feel that they are priced out of the chance to receive these special tags.  I had the chance to ask the Utah Mule Deer Foundation’s Eric Tycksen about the Utah conservation Tag program and how the Mule Deer Foundation plays a role in the process.  He informed me that state law may preclude raffling tags.

” In Utah and abroad, the decision of where to send the tags is made by MDF headquarters with input from RD’s and Director of Field operations and some volunteers. We are limited on what tags can be raffled versus auctioned by the laws of the state. For example, it is against the rules in Utah to raffle one of the conservation tags so all of them are sold on a live, silent, or sealed bid auction. Geographic areas play a part in where the tags are sold. For example, a Manti, Utah elk tag would be sent to a Nephi banquet. Most of the people that attend that banquet live by that Manti unit.” 

 When I asked him about his feelings on whether he felt that the auction method gave undue advantage to more “well heeled” hunters, he was frank in his response:

 ”Your last question is one for the ages. No I do not think auctioning conservation tags creates an unfair advantage for rich hunters. Anyone can buy these tags. The vast majority of these tags sell for a few thousand dollars or less and some in the hundreds. Yes there are a select few that sell for astronomical amount of money. I would have a better chance of obtaining a tag by saving my money for a few years and buying one at auction than waiting to draw one through the regular state process. A very small percentage of the states tags are carved out and set aside for conservation tags. And the good that they provide through the money raised and projects completed may never be realized by the average person.”

If you ask many hunters about auction tags most will have a definite opinion either in favor of them or against them, but nearly everyone I have encountered has admitted that they are glad that the money funds conservation in an age where budgets are shrinking for the state wildlife agencies.  What many hunters propose is a raffle sale for these premium tags.  We will examine those options in another column to follow.

First and foremost, McCain has a better stance on firearms, gun control and the second amendment than Senator Obama.  This is the number one reason most hunters I speak to endorse the Republican ticket. 

Also I feel his agricultural policies are in line with the development of habitat for wildlife, by enabling Americas farmers and ranchers to continue produce the worlds safest and most abundant food supply.  Since wildlife depend on private agricultural lands a healthy agriculture industry means a healthy wildlife population.

McCain has even stepped up on the subject of climate change with market based incentives for reducing greenhouse emissions.  It is a balanced approach to stimulating a healthy economy , while maintaining a healthy planet.

When I saw Sarah Palin as the vice presidential candidate, I knew this was a ticket for sportsmen.  As the governor of a state with the most square miles of wild lands, and the greatest production of gas and oil in the United States, Sarah brings a unique perspective regarding the balance between energy and habitat.  After visiting Alaska in 2007, I’ve seen how wild it truly is.  I doubt there is a sportsman in the lower 48 who wouldn’t like their local hunting grounds to be more like those in Alaska in terms of wildlife diversity and population.  That value of wildlife both in economic and recreational terms is a good addition to the McCain ticket from a sportsman’s perspective.

So there you have my personal political opinion.  Something I’m not very used to giving, and you won’t see very often in this column.  But I felt it warranted a mention before election day.  Regardless of your personal views, I do hope that all of my readers will turn out to vote.  I feel it is our civic duty to use our democratic privilege.   I’ll see you at the polls.

Below is a Bio of Sarah:

Governor Sarah Palin made history on Dec. 4, 2006 when she took office. As the 11th governor of Alaska, she is the first woman to hold the office.

Since taking office, her top priorities have been resource development, education and workforce development, public health and safety, and transportation and infrastructure development.

Prior to her election as governor, Palin served two terms on the Wasilla City Council and two terms as the mayor/manager of Wasilla. She has served as chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, which regulates Alaska’s most valuable non-renewable resources: oil and gas. She was elected by her peers to serve as president of the Alaska Conference of Mayors.

Sarah Heath Palin arrived in Alaska with her family in 1964, when her parents came to teach school in Skagway. She received a bachelor of science degree in communications-journalism from the University of Idaho in 1987. Palin, who graduated from Wasilla High School in 1982, has lived in Skagway, Eagle River and Wasilla.

She is married to Todd Palin, a lifelong Alaskan, a production operator on the North Slope and a four-time champion of the Iron Dog, the world’s longest snowmachine race.

Todd and Sarah commercial fish in Bristol Bay with their children – Track, Bristol, Willow and Piper. Through Todd’s Yup’ik grandmother, Alaska’s Native heritage plays an important role in their family. Track enlisted in the U.S. Army on Sept. 11, 2007.

Palin is a lifetime member of the NRA and enjoys hunting, fishing, Alaska history, and all that Alaska’s great outdoors has to offer.

 

I will certainly be keeping an eye on the presidential race with Govenor Palin “in the mix” now.  She has won the hearts of outdoorsmen in Alaska, and it will be interesting to see how the rest of America responds. 

I’d be interested to hear your point of view on Sarah and her outdoors heritage as well. 

I’ve included the ASDA release and contact info below.  Please help California’s responsible dog owners avoid another attempt by Animal Rights organizations to infringe on the rights of thousands of hunting dog and working dog owners.

Revised California AB1634 Unleashes
Animal Rights Vigilantes On Dog Owners

A Complaint Does Not Require Proof In Court

by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
asda@csonline.net

SACRAMENTO, CA – Animal rights extremists would be given unchecked vigilante powers to attack dog owners under a revision to AB1634, which is now before the legislature.

The Senate Local Government Committee will hear and vote on the bill this coming Wednesday, June 25th, in Room 112 of the State Capitol. The hearing will start at 9:30 AM. AB 1634 originally was a statewide mandate for spaying or neutering almost all dogs. It was defeated last year, but has been given new life through an agreement by its primary sponsor, Rep. Lloyd Levine, and Senate Local Government Committee Chairman Gloria Negrete McLeod.

On the surface, the revised legislation removes mandatory spay and neuter, which has lulled some dog owners into thinking that this issue has been dropped.

However, an analysis of the legislation by the American Sporting Dog Alliance shows that the revised bill approaches mandatory spay and neuter through a backdoor approach that is far more devastating to dog owners than the original version.

The legislation empowers anyone to make a complaint alleging that any dog owner is in violation of any law or local ordinance. The complaint does not have to be proven, and dog owners are denied the right to challenge a complaint in a court of law or through an administrative review process.

A simple complaint establishes guilt under the revised legislation, and “guilt” translates into a choice between paying a high fine (called a civil penalty, which is much more than a semantic difference) or spaying and neutering one’s dog or dogs. People who are accused of any violation are denied their day in court, and have no appeal.

This legislative sleight of hand would allow animal rights activists to act as vigilantes by searching the state and reporting any dog owner who does something they don’t like, even if their complaints are pure fiction.

Here is how the legislation sets up a kangaroo court, with animal rights fanatics being given the power of judge, jury and hangman. The following material is a list of direct quotes from the legislation in italics, and some non-italicized commentary by ASDA:

· “The owner of a nonspayed or unneutered dog that is the subject of a complaint shall be cited and pay a civil penalty as provided in this section. This civil penalty shall be in addition to any fine, fee, or penalty imposed under any other provision of law or local ordinance.”

· “The owner of the dog shall pay the civil penalty to the local animal control agency within 30 business days of the citation. The local animal control agency shall waive the civil penalty if, within 14 business days of the citation, the owner of the dog presents written proof from a licensed veterinarian that the dog was spayed or neutered.”

· “ ’Complaint’ means an oral or written complaint to a local animal control agency that alleges that the dog or the owner of the dog has violated this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance. ‘Complaint’ also means the observation by an employee or officer of a local animal control agency of behavior by a dog or the owner of a dog that violates this division, any other provision of state law that relates to dogs, or a local animal control ordinance.”

· “The civil penalties shall be as follows:(1) On the first occurrence, fifty dollars ($50). (2) On the second occurrence for the same dog, one hundred dollars ($100). (3) On the third occurrence for the same dog, the spaying or neutering of the dog by order of the local animal control agency, with the owner paying the cost of the procedure.”

· “ ‘Local animal control agency’ means any city or county animal control agency or other entity responsible for enforcing animal-related laws or local animal control ordinances.” This includes Humane Societies and other animal welfare organizations empowered to enforce animal cruelty or other dog laws.

The only exclusion is that a complaint about barking dogs does not trigger the enforcement actions of this legislation. All other alleged dog law violations are included.

The legislation does not require an allegation to be proven, and does not allow an animal control agency the discretionary power to review any complaint for its merits. A simple complaint translates into guilt.

Using animal cruelty laws as an example, a complaint can be filed by anyone who believes or claims that someone is not taking good care of an animal. They don’t have to prove it. All they have to do is make a complaint. Similar cruelty complaints could be lodged against the owner of a dog being hunted or competing in a field trial during bad weather.

Another example is a complaint about alleged leash law violations. Someone could complain that a dog that is being hunted or is competing in a field trial violates a leash law. This, too, would not have to be proven.

Still another example would be if an animal rights activist trespassed on private property, and a dog acted defensively by barking. Such a dog could be accused of being a dangerous dog, simply for protecting its home against a stranger.

The legal trick is to call an alleged violation an “administrative” issue, rather than a crime or a violation of civil law. For crimes or violations of civil law, a person is entitled to defend him or herself in court, and the burden of proof is on the state.

For administrative actions, those guarantees of due process under the law are denied to dog owners.

There is no requirement for proof of any kind. There is no opportunity for a dog owner to defend him/herself. There is no appeal.

Another spin-off of this legislation is that local officials would be under continual siege by animal rights groups to adopt new animal ordinances.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges all California dog owners to contact the members of the Senate Local Government Committee immediately (remember that the hearing is Wednesday) and express your opposition to this legislation, called AB1634.

Here is contact information for committee members:

Peter Detwiler, Staff Director
Fax: (916) 322-0298
peter.detwiler@sen.ca.gov
This is a VERY important contact!

Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod (Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2059
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4032
Fax (916) 322-0298
Senator.McLeod@senate.ca.gov

Senator Dave Cox (Vice Chair)
State Capitol, Room 2068
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4001
Fax: (916) 324-2680
Senator.Cox@senate.ca.gov

Senator Tom Harman
State Capitol, Room 2052
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4035
Fax: (916) 445-9263
Senator.Harman@senate.ca.gov

Senator Christine Kehoe
State Capitol, Room 4038
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4039
Fax: (916) 327-2188
Senator.Kehoe@senate.ca.gov

Senator Michael Machado
State Capitol, Room 5066
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 651-4005
Fax: (916) 323-2304
Senator.Machado@sen.ca.gov

The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, hobby breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life. Please visit us on the web at http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org. Our email is ASDA@csonline.net.

The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by the donations of our members, and maintain strict independence.

PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS

“He” is often a woman.  I use the linguistically masculine words man, he, him, and his in the traditionally proper, classically correct asexual generic sense for men, women, boys, and girls.  I consider the awkward, intrusive, politically “correct” forms “he (or she)” and “he/she” as linguistic abominations that I refuse to use in my own writing and eliminate from the manuscripts that I edit.  

(I’m neither a chauvinist nor a feminist, just a plain old egalitarian who delights in the fact that hunting and fishing are as truly and thoroughly egalitarian as any other activity known to man.  And although I’m not a master outdoorsman myself, I’ve noticed that all of the master outdoorsmen whom I’ve known feel exactly the same.

Well, maybe I’m tainted with a tinge of both chauvinism and feminism, because I also delight in noticing that the women of the outdoors are usually smarter and lovelier than those frumpy females who despise hunting and fishing.  And I feel absolutely no shame for this admitted personal bias but prefer to call it appreciation or taste.  Outdoorsmen appreciate all kinds of genuine treasures.

I have to say that the last paragraph echoes my personal sentiments about women in the outdoors.  I look forward to having some  dad ‘n’ daughter outdoor experiences, perhaps in concert with other western outdoor loving dads.  I think sometimes my daughters feel that they are the only girls who know what it’s like to skin a deer, or breast out a duck.  Perhaps a get together with other hunting girls would provide the impetus for them to continue to appreciate the outdoors whether it be hunting, fishing, big game or small. 

So I’m putting it out there for any other dads who want to get together, or daughters who want to show their dads about what they enjoy outdoors.  i think we would find a commonnn appreciation beyond the single gender outings.