Social fascism is rising in California. So is intolerance. And, while we are at it, McCarthyism. What else can we call the drive in the California Legislature to fire the nonsalaried president of the California Fish and Game Commission (Daniel Richards) because he legally hunted a mountain lion in Idaho? From the San Francisco Chronicle story:
Democratic lawmakers may attempt to oust California Fish and Game Commission President Daniel Richards as early as next week following outrage over his legal killing of a mountain lion on a recent Idaho hunting trip. Assembly Democrats on Wednesday were looking into the possibility of a legislative resolution that would remove him from the board, one day after Richards sent a letter to the Legislature, the governor and other state officials defiantly defending the killing, mocking critics for their outrage and saying that – contrary to beliefs that the shooting was purely a trophy kill - he did, in fact, eat mountain lion.
In true Leftist fashion, our intrepid Lieutenant Governor, Gavin Newsom, wants him dismissed because shooting the cougar somehow violated “California values”:
The lieutenant governor wrote to Richards, saying the killing of a cougar doesn’t reflect California values and the incident is a distraction that interferes with commission issues.
What are “California values?” Political correctness. So, if you work for the state and act in legal ways that the reigning Left views as wrong, you should be fired.
A letter to the editor in the Chronicle hysterically branded the hunt a “murder” and compared Richards to a gang member:
He represents the very worst in human nature. Murdering – yes, murdering by way of the almighty gun – a wild animal that wanted only to live its life as nature intended, is indicative of the warped and sadistic mind-set of the hunter, ever the bully, ever the destroyer of what such people consider to be “lesser” forms of life. But to be photographed lifting the torn and lifeless body of a once-beautiful mountain lion and gloating over his “victory” is beyond redemption. This man simply is not civilized. The name of his game is “brutality” – and there’s no difference between his attitude toward life and that of the most vile of gang members.
Gang members kill each other, murder crime victims, innocent bystanders–and children with their stray shots–all the time in the Bay Area. That carnage is equivalent to hunting a mountain lion? Get. A. Grip.
By the way, I loathe trophy hunting as killing for ego, because that is what this really was. But whether I like it or not isn’t the point.
Hey, perhaps in his defense he can point to all the lives of deer he saved by killing the cat. Bambi sleeps more soundly tonight. Good grief.
March 1st, 2012 | 4:11 pm
“He represents the very worst in human nature. Murdering – yes, murdering by way of the almighty gun – a wild animal that wanted only to live its life as nature intended, is indicative of the warped and sadistic mind-set of the hunter, ever the bully, ever the destroyer of what such people consider to be ‘lesser’ forms of life.”
I can think of some “lesser” forms of life California shells out taxpayer funding to do away with.
March 1st, 2012 | 6:27 pm
The legislators killed many an ant driving their cars or biking to their meetings. Barbaric.
March 2nd, 2012 | 1:01 am
is indicative of the warped and sadistic mind-set of the hunter, ever the bully, ever the destroyer of what such people consider to be ‘lesser’ forms of life.”
The hunter is just living out his life the way Nature intended him. How is he any different from the cougar?
March 2nd, 2012 | 2:48 am
Because of Richards’ position as President of the Fish & Game Commission, his actions have tended to undermine, and make it more difficult to enforce, the law of the State of California that would forbid Richards’ actions if done in California. Even if technically legal Richards shouldn’t have done it as a matter of prudence. I would settle for a reprimand at this time. Even if you disagree, you’re language is WAY out of line (“fascism”, “intolerance,” “McCarthyism”).
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 10:00 am
No. It is right on the money. Reprimanded for what? He did nothing wrong. For believing and acting differently than the reigning ideological view–and not backing down. That’s pure McCarthyism. I don’t like the kill at all, but so what? Offending liberals. That’s the offense.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:08 am
@Wesley J. Smith, You say you don’t like the kill. Why not? If he did nothing wrong, in your eyes, why do you not like the kill?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 11:29 am
Bret: I think such kills are ego driven. But I am not a dictator and in a free society we can’t punish people who have done nothing illegal because we are affronted by their values. Otherwise, whichever side has the power will continually blackball the other.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:06 am
I think that what this man did not only contradicts animal rights principles, but also animal welfare.
I’m curious Wesley. You state often, that you fully support animal welfare principles. You also seem rather offended when anyone questions your committment to animal welfare. I believe you when you assert that you care about animals, and that you advocate for their welfare. But you seem to have a propensity for writing articles that defend those those kill animals (e.g., big daddy, the elephant killer). But I don’t think that I’ve seen any articles that you’ve written, where you condemn anyone’s treatment of animals, similar to how you’re almost constantly condemning those in, for example, the Bioethics field who advocate for treating unconscious humans as nonpersons. Are any such articles in existence? Perhaps you could link me to one, or more, where you criticize individuals, or groups for their harmful treatment of animals? Do you really believe in animal welfare, or do you just say that you do? Because if you do, and as I mentioned, I believe that you do, you could come up with plenty of articles citing cases where humans have treated animals not in accordance with animal welfare principles.
Speaking of animals welfare principles, how can the killing of a healthy animal, that was not threatening him, be defended on animal welfare grounds? Not animal rights, animal welfare. I’m curious how you could defend it on animal welfare grounds. You certianly wouldn’t asrgue that someone who shot and killed a stray dog, that wasn’t a threat to anyone could be defended on animal welfare grounds, would you? Or do you believe in different animal welfare principles for domestic animals? Recently a man was arrested for killing and eating a domestic cat. Is the law that stipulated that this man be arrested moral in your view? Why or why not?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 2nd, 2012 at 9:59 am
Bret: I believe in liberty. The hunt was legal. That kind of thing is fading away. The days of Hemingway are over. But people should not be punished for offending the sensibilities of others.
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:04 am
@Wesley J. Smith, Of course we both believe in liberty. That’s not the issue. The issue , is whether what he did was moral. Obviously, it’s legal. But is it moral? I would submit that it not only wasn’t moral, but it was profoundly immoral. Clearly, you’re not going to write any articles defending euthanasia, in, say, the Netherlands, on the basis that it’s legal, are you? Of course not. You’ll argue that, despite it being legal, it’s immoral, and should be condemned. You’re not going to defend abortion here, in the US, are you, on the basis that it’s legal? You’re going to argue that it’s immoral, and despite its legality it should be condemned.
Now, you obviously have the right to answer the questions you wish, but I find it strange that you don’t choose to answer my question, since, if you had a good answer to it, you could more easily defend this man: if it violates animal welfare principles to kill and eat a domestic cat, because it constitutes cruelty, then why woul him killing a bigger wild cat, and eating it, not violate animal welfare principles? The fact that you choose not to answer this, is evidence that your animal welfare position is relativistic. After all, since a mountain lion, and a domestic cat both feel the same pain, both acts would be equally cruel, right, and therefore equally contrary to proper animal welfare principles, right?
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 11:31 am
No, the issue is whether he should lose his job because those in power disapprove of legal conduct. Look, such hunts are going out of style and good for it. But we can’t punish people for being Hemmingway when it is legal and in the eyes of many moral. It would have been illegal in CA. Had he done it here, that would be a different story.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:33 am
One final point. Let’s say that, instead of hunting and killing a mountian lion, this man humanted and killed a domestic cat. Would you still defend him? Should he still keep his job? And please don’t say that one is legal and the other isn’t. That doesn’t address the issue. There’s no ontological difference between a domestic cat, and a mountain lion. They both are cats, with similar levels of high intelligence, and the capacity to suffer. If animal welfare principles, as you understand them Wesley, consider killing the domestic cat, (whether subsequently eating it, or not) to be an act that constitutes animal cruelty, do doing the exact same thing to a mountain lion, as this man has done, is not an act of animal cruelty, how do you escape the moral relativism that your animal welfare principles seem to be a part of?
But if both acts, the killing of a domestic cat, and the killing of a mountain lion (assuming that neither creature is a danger to anyone) are of the same species of animal cruelty, as they must be, since both animals suffer very similarly, you must, to maintain a coherent animal welfare position, denounce both types of killings.
Thanks for answering my questions. And I do honestly believe that you’re committed to animal welfare, but you don’t seem to have adequately grappled with the logical inconsistencies that seem to exist when one accpts that the killing of a domestic cat, is inhumane, animal abuse, but killing a mountain lion is just another choice, that’s being infringed upon by the politically correct leftist crowd. Perhaps you could clarify your position, to clear up any confusion. Thank you.
March 2nd, 2012 | 7:20 am
One more thing, then I’ll be quiet. I just linked to the picture of Daniel Richards smiling over the corpse of the mountain lion that he just killed. My reaction is a mixture of saddness and anger. How could he be happy after he just ended the life of a highly intelligent animal? It’s possible, considering the grin on his face, that this man is a sociopath, and the state of California would be better off without him being employed. I’m utterly disgusted and saddened by this morally reprehensible act, and that he would be grinning. No decent person could do this, and smile about it.
March 2nd, 2012 | 1:42 pm
“How could he be happy after he just ended the life of a highly intelligent animal?”
Because he has a nice supply of lion burgers now?
I see people smiling all the time while holding food. Are they sadistic too since animals and/or plants died in order for them to receive that food? I mean really, what kind of psychopath smiles when biting into a carrot; a defenseless, peaceful organism that didn’t harm them at all.
I’ve also seen a picture of a bunch of animal rights activists smiling outside a building they constructed. Surely they too must be psychopaths. Why else would they be celebrating forcefully removing intelligent animals from their homes (animals originally lived on the land and trees they had to destroy), most likely causing quite a few to die (if they weren’t killed during the construction/tree logging process) when they have to struggle to find a new home in unfamiliar territory?
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:45 am
@Fishstick, Fishstick, he was holding a corpse of a creature that was living, and feeling just minutes before. His smile was/is revolting. I think that it’s possible that he is a sociopath. Not all sociopaths are in prison. In fact, most are not in prison. Many sociopaths, it’s sad to say, hold positions of authority and respect, and power.
I don’t defend what some animal rights activists have done. I certainly don’t defend their actions when these actions constitute violations of human rights. I don’t dispute at all that some animal rights activists may be sociopaths. The latter are found in all walks of life.
March 2nd, 2012 | 4:47 pm
Well I suppose with that attitude, I wonder if the editor would print this statement:
“She represents the very worst in human nature. Murdering – yes, murdering by way of an abortionist’s knife – a unborn child that wanted only to live its life as nature intended, is indicative of the warped and sadistic mind-set of the pro-choice crowd, ever the bully, ever the destroyer of what such people consider the fetus to be the ‘lesser’ form of life.”
Bret Lythgoe Reply:
March 3rd, 2012 at 3:47 am
@Donna, Donna, I believe that abortion is wrong too. I believe that harming animals and unborn humans should be condemned.
March 3rd, 2012 | 3:35 am
Wesley, it’s articles like this one, that provides ammunition to those who are inclined to believe that your animal welfare position is disingenuous. I know that you’re sincere in your commitment to animal welfare. And you have defended animals in other articles. But your animal welfare position sems inconsistent to me. You seem to be arguing that would he did was not only legal (obviously this is true) but also moral (“He did nothing wrong”). But he would have done something both illegal and immoral if he killed and ate a domestic cat. I hate to keep harping on this, but it’s important. It shows the inconsistency in the animal welfare position that you, and others endorse.
Certainly you agree that the moral basis for someone not killing and eating domestic cats is that doing so constitutes cruelty, or at least inhumane treatment, right? I know that you don’t support that. And the reason why it’s cruel or inhumane is that, the domestic cats feel pain and can suffer.
Mountain lions feel the same type of pain and suffering. Therefore, to kill and eat them would constitute the same type of pain and suffering. And you certainly would not argue that, if this man killed and ate a domestic cat, the only offense he committed would be offending “liberals” would you? No, he would be in the same category as a Micheal Vick.
So, we have a huge inconsistency in our laws. To allow the killing and eating of mountain lions, violates the same animal welfare principles that are the basis of our laws against the killing and the eating of domestic cats.
If you can live with that inconsistency, that’s your right, but the corollary is that, there will be a further lack of respect the rest of us will have for the animal welfare principles that you endorse. (after all, a proponent of a respectable animal welfare view would want to extricate all the inconsistencies that it can).
Thanks you, Wesley, for allowing my views, and others who disagree with you. I respect that you allow differing viewpoints. Certainly you obviously have a right to choose not to answer these objections that I’ve raised. But if you have good answers to them, why not address them, to better defend the descrepancy in allowing for the killing of mountain lions and not domestic cats?
I’ve exausted the issue here. Thanks, and take care.
March 3rd, 2012 | 3:20 pm
Fishstick, he was holding a corpse of a creature that was living, and feeling just minutes before. His smile was/is revolting. I think that it’s possible that he is a sociopath.
The pleasure from hunting is similar to the pleasure one gets from gardening.
There is an instinctive pleasure in the skills one needs for self-sufficiency. Growing or ‘bagging’ one’s own food is instinctively pleasurable.
Other animals that are not necessarily food (or primarily food) trigger a similar response in that it is pleasurable to be tested against the elements and to pass the test. These animals are dangerous and predatory, and represent a threat on a very primal, visceral level.
Those of you who condemn this response should be aware that you are preaching only to your own choir: we all know that if you actually had to fend for yourself, you’d be helpless, and would either die pathetically or learn very quickly how to acquire the skills you scorn.
Civilization is a fragile thing, and it is based on trust. Humans being able to trust each other leads to civilization (whereas humans trusting animals leads to yet another story on the 8 oclock news about some guy who got eaten by the bear he was feeding). But no matter how civilized we become, there is always a frontier – a boundary between the safe inside part, where people are cared for and are secure and well fed – vs. the outer parts, where people continue to hone and to need the skills cultivated in activities like hunting (both for food and for defense).
Incidentally, with the poor economy (and the price of food skyrocketing – I assume that is the price of gas?!!??), more people in my region have started relying on food they kill themselves. I’m sure everyone will be paying attention to their gardens, as well.
April 28th, 2012 | 10:18 am
Why are you so worked up about this guy killing some insect?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact