|
Become a friend of the Klamath Bucket Brigade All donations are tax deductible |
|
This Website is Dedicated to Alvin Alexander Cheyne January 10, 1921 - June 17, 2005 |
GovTrack.us is an independent tool to help the public research and track the activities in the U.S. Congress, promoting government transparency and civic education through novel uses of technology.
Wolves, Roosters & the
Constitution
A Lady Reader is Upset with Me
A lady has expressed her umbrage with me for comparing "what it was like
thousands of years ago when native people watched jungle fowl roosters going
at it for good in some isolated glade" to the excitement I felt watching one
and then two eagles engage and kill a full-grown wolf. I made this
observation when I recently forwarded a 7-minute video of Mongolian horsemen
using trained eagles (like hawks used in "falconry" hunting) and flushing
wolves out into open country where the eagles can spot them, chase them,
catch them, and kill them. The gist of her complaint seems to be that I am
plugging cock-fighting. She is both far from the truth and correct
simultaneously.
How can that be?
First of all, she is far from the truth in that I have never attended a
cock-fight nor am I advocating cock-fighting. Having listened to
cock-fighters describe the event and their enthusiasm (I dated a girl many
years ago whose Dad raised and fought game fowl) I must admit that watching
those eagles locked in mortal combat with a wolf was exciting and seemingly
a balanced match that made me feel just like cock-fighters described the
thrill they experienced during a cock-fight.
I did not then (when forwarding the video) mention it to lobby for
cock-fighting. Rather, I mentioned cock-fighting because of when I caught
myself smiling and then laughing out loud as first one, then a second eagle
went tumbling head over (heels?) tail feathers locked in a combat to the
death with an assumedly stronger opponent. Is it wrong or "verboten" to
mention such a comparison? What else is there to compare it to? If the US
Constitution "guarantees freedom of speech"; are we so far removed that
mention of certain things is no longer free to be considered or ignored as
the reader desires?
Second though, she is right on the money. I mentioned the happy faces of
those Mongolian men carrying those heavy birds on their heavily-gloved arms
as they rode their horses across those hilly plains. Come to think of it,
that is the same smile I see on the face of cock-fighters, hunters,
trappers, and fishermen as they too enjoy or describe the chase and "taking"
of an animal just as those Mongolian men were doing.
If those men wanted to kill wolves in open country in the US with eagles
they trained, government bird regulations would prevent it even though there
are plenty of surplus golden eagles each year. As to the wolves, you can't
even shoot them or trap them or "harass" them in any way - even in your own
curtilage UNLESS you can PROVE there was no other way to save your life or
the life of someone else despite federal investigators convinced of your
guilt and trained to find, convict, and kill terrorists using every
investigative tool available to federal officers and courts. Lots of luck on
that one!
Yet the bigger factor at work here is the men themselves. In the US today,
men are denigrated for owning guns, hunting, trapping, controlling harmful
species of wildlife but most assuredly for "Enjoying" such activities just
like those Mongolian men. In America today, there would be mobs of
malcontents of every stripe condemning it, demonstrating against it, calling
for laws against it, teaching children to hate it, and ultimately forcing
any participants into prisons or worse for doing it - JUST AS HAS BEEN DONE
WITH COCK-FIGHTING. Such modern scolds are reminiscent of those HL Mencken
once described as "living in mortal fear that somewhere, someone was having
a good time."
For the first 200 years of this country, objections to these things involved
personal judgments and individual behavior. If you didn't like cock-fights
you didn't go to them. You taught your children but not other's children
your values. If cock-fights made noise you voted to move them out of town.
If they sold booze without a license, you shut them down. If you didn't
like some businessman because of his support of cock-fighting, you didn't do
business with him. If many in a community or County opposed cock-fighting
you voted to ban it in that local jurisdiction. But through it all, it USED
to be a Local community decision, Not a State and certainly Not a Federal
matter. That was the American Constitutional way.
Consider as we have abandoned free speech and Local authority for federal
laws on everything from chickens, gardens, and wolves to horse slaughter,
what we can eat, and what children will be indoctrinated about: what have we
gained? What have we lost? As we (Urban v Rural, Red v Blue, etc.) deal
with wolves or teacher's salaries, etc. we are increasingly at each other's
throats. As time goes by we abandon the principles of freedom to do and be
what we can; in favor of whoever's in charge can make you do whatever they
want you to do and you have no recourse. We go from banning cock fighting
to forcing wolves wherever the federal government says. If Washington, DC
and modern Americans ruled Ulan Bator (the capital of Mongolia) today, those
smiles on those men's faces would be wiped away pretty darn quick.
I heard it said this morning that "A nation divided against itself cannot
stand". The USA is more and more divided "against itself" and Mongolia,
well Mongolian men still enjoy themselves while reducing wolf dangers and,
I'll bet, even watching some roosters go at it from time to time.
Jim Beers
31 March 2011
A Lady Reader is Upset with Me
A lady has expressed her umbrage with me for comparing "what it was like
thousands of years ago when native people watched jungle fowl roosters going
at it for good in some isolated glade" to the excitement I felt watching one
and then two eagles engage and kill a full-grown wolf. I made this
observation when I recently forwarded a 7-minute video of Mongolian horsemen
using trained eagles (like hawks used in "falconry" hunting) and flushing
wolves out into open country where the eagles can spot them, chase them,
catch them, and kill them. The gist of her complaint seems to be that I am
plugging cock-fighting. She is both far from the truth and correct
simultaneously.
How can that be?
First of all, she is far from the truth in that I have never attended a
cock-fight nor am I advocating cock-fighting. Having listened to
cock-fighters describe the event and their enthusiasm (I dated a girl many
years ago whose Dad raised and fought game fowl) I must admit that watching
those eagles locked in mortal combat with a wolf was exciting and seemingly
a balanced match that made me feel just like cock-fighters described the
thrill they experienced during a cock-fight.
I did not then (when forwarding the video) mention it to lobby for
cock-fighting. Rather, I mentioned cock-fighting because of when I caught
myself smiling and then laughing out loud as first one, then a second eagle
went tumbling head over (heels?) tail feathers locked in a combat to the
death with an assumedly stronger opponent. Is it wrong or "verboten" to
mention such a comparison? What else is there to compare it to? If the US
Constitution "guarantees freedom of speech"; are we so far removed that
mention of certain things is no longer free to be considered or ignored as
the reader desires?
Second though, she is right on the money. I mentioned the happy faces of
those Mongolian men carrying those heavy birds on their heavily-gloved arms
as they rode their horses across those hilly plains. Come to think of it,
that is the same smile I see on the face of cock-fighters, hunters,
trappers, and fishermen as they too enjoy or describe the chase and "taking"
of an animal just as those Mongolian men were doing.
If those men wanted to kill wolves in open country in the US with eagles
they trained, government bird regulations would prevent it even though there
are plenty of surplus golden eagles each year. As to the wolves, you can't
even shoot them or trap them or "harass" them in any way - even in your own
curtilage UNLESS you can PROVE there was no other way to save your life or
the life of someone else despite federal investigators convinced of your
guilt and trained to find, convict, and kill terrorists using every
investigative tool available to federal officers and courts. Lots of luck on
that one!
Yet the bigger factor at work here is the men themselves. In the US today,
men are denigrated for owning guns, hunting, trapping, controlling harmful
species of wildlife but most assuredly for "Enjoying" such activities just
like those Mongolian men. In America today, there would be mobs of
malcontents of every stripe condemning it, demonstrating against it, calling
for laws against it, teaching children to hate it, and ultimately forcing
any participants into prisons or worse for doing it - JUST AS HAS BEEN DONE
WITH COCK-FIGHTING. Such modern scolds are reminiscent of those HL Mencken
once described as "living in mortal fear that somewhere, someone was having
a good time."
For the first 200 years of this country, objections to these things involved
personal judgments and individual behavior. If you didn't like cock-fights
you didn't go to them. You taught your children but not other's children
your values. If cock-fights made noise you voted to move them out of town.
If they sold booze without a license, you shut them down. If you didn't
like some businessman because of his support of cock-fighting, you didn't do
business with him. If many in a community or County opposed cock-fighting
you voted to ban it in that local jurisdiction. But through it all, it USED
to be a Local community decision, Not a State and certainly Not a Federal
matter. That was the American Constitutional way.
Consider as we have abandoned free speech and Local authority for federal
laws on everything from chickens, gardens, and wolves to horse slaughter,
what we can eat, and what children will be indoctrinated about: what have we
gained? What have we lost? As we (Urban v Rural, Red v Blue, etc.) deal
with wolves or teacher's salaries, etc. we are increasingly at each other's
throats. As time goes by we abandon the principles of freedom to do and be
what we can; in favor of whoever's in charge can make you do whatever they
want you to do and you have no recourse. We go from banning cock fighting
to forcing wolves wherever the federal government says. If Washington, DC
and modern Americans ruled Ulan Bator (the capital of Mongolia) today, those
smiles on those men's faces would be wiped away pretty darn quick.
I heard it said this morning that "A nation divided against itself cannot
stand". The USA is more and more divided "against itself" and Mongolia,
well Mongolian men still enjoy themselves while reducing wolf dangers and,
I'll bet, even watching some roosters go at it from time to time.
Jim Beers
31 March 2011
If you found this worthwhile, please share it with others. Thanks.
Jim Beers is a retired US Fish & Wildlife Service Wildlife Biologist,
Special Agent, Refuge Manager, Wetlands Biologist, and Congressional Fellow.
He was stationed in North Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York City, and
Washington DC. He also served as a US Navy Line Officer in the western
Pacific and on Adak, Alaska in the Aleutian Islands. He has worked for the
Utah Fish & Game, Minneapolis Police Department, and as a Security
Supervisor in Washington, DC. He testified three times before Congress;
twice regarding the theft by the US Fish & Wildlife Service of $45 to 60
Million from State fish and wildlife funds and once in opposition to
expanding Federal Invasive Species authority. He resides in Eagan,
Minnesota with his wife of many decades.
Jim Beers is available to speak or for consulting at jimbeers7@comcast.net