Bill of [no] Rights by John C. Street

Awhile back I received a humorous email from a scholarly friend that was called the “Bill of No Rights.” Ostensibly it had been written by State Representative Mitchell Kaye from Georgia as a way to poke fun at some of the absurdities that had been making the national headlines.  For instance, “ARTICLE  III:  You do not have the right to be free from harm.  If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful, do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.” 

For those of us who carry a firearm into the woods and uplands as a means to provide meat for our tables, Representative Kaye’s spoof on our Nation’s Bill of Rights doesn’t seem at all absurd.  A current review of firearm litigation suggests there are an awful lot of people looking to become “independently wealthy” and while their covetous eyes have not turned directly on the sportsman yet, it is, arguably, just a matter of time. 

In the book, Animal Liberation, author Peter Singer explores the legal rights of animals and concludes that “the interests of animals ought to be considered equally with our own and from this equality it follows that we ought to become vegetarians.” Think he’s alone?  How about the language contained in the Friends of Animals publication, Hunting: An Act Against Nature, which states, “the premeditated killing of wildlife is abhorrent to most people.”  While these excerpts alone are unsettling, and factually untrue, look at the words that have been editorially italicized.  Just in case you’re missing the point, as a hunter you must be advised that the stage is being set to play this out in our legal system and the opposing council is not only well financed but twenty-five percent of the population of the United States might very well be supporting their position if the polling research conducted by Responsive Management is accurate. 

To see what a coordinated group of plaintiffs can achieve when the legislative and judicial stars are in alignment, look no further than the tobacco industry.  While this is not intended as a defense of the companies that manufacture these products, it does illustrate what appears to be a serious breach in common sense.  As Representative Kaye’s spoof illustrates, there are people who will smoke despite the warnings posted on the product and there are probably people who will poke themselves in the eye with a screw driver.  The frightening part is that there is also a legal precedence for them to band together and sue to be compensated for their own stupidity. 

The animal welfarists, as evidenced by the explosion of organizations (like The Animal Liberation Front, Friends of Animals, Greenpeace, Sierra Club, and the People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) are already banded together and have begun to talk the legal talk.  And the process, just in case you only read the “how to” articles in the outdoor magazines you buy or subscribe to, has already begun. 

The Sierra Club and three private individuals advised the US Fish and Wildlife Service last August that they intended to go to court over the way the Michigan Department of Natural Resources was using Pittman-Robertson (PR) funds for wildlife habitat improvements.  PR funds, as a quick reminder, are the excise tax dollars that sportsmen pay every time they purchase firearms or ammunition.  The heart of the Sierra Club’s objection is summed up in that portion of their brief that accuses the MDNR of putting too much “focus on creating habitat for game species at the expense of non-game animals.” 

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources, that state’s agency that conducts the same functions as Pennsylvania’s Game Commission, Fish and Boat Commission and Department of Environmental Protection, has used PR funds for nearly fifty years to create the early successional habitat used by many game and non-game species for food, cover and reproductive areas.  This precedence of use was well argued by both the MDNR and the US Fish and Wildlife Service but denied credibility in the legal review. 

The concern that sportsmen should have, as aptly summed up by the Wildlife Management Institute, is that the Sierra Club’s law suite “could set a precedent that encourages numerous and frivolous challenges from organizations with anti-management [and, coincidentally, anti-hunting] agendas.”  And demonstrating their true intent, the Sierra Club has also requested that “federal funding be halted for these projects until the issues are resolved.” 

The frontal attack on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States that is playing out in many large cities (i,e, the mammoth law suits being filed against legitimate, old-line, firearms manufacturers) while the most visible of the anti-gun efforts, should not lull sportsmen into believing this highly visible assault is the only battle line being drawn.  While parts of the ‘anti’ community attack the firearms, other parts attack their use and that, in one of its most legitimate forms, is hunting. 

“In the coming months,” according to the Wildlife Management Institute, “the natural resource agencies and conservation organization that represent professional wildlife management will be monitoring closely the outcome of the Sierra Club’s challenge.” That this important collective of wildlife and habitat professionals sees and understands the meaning of this attack on the financial support that sportsmen have given to both game and non game birds and animals, and as a consequence the appropriate use of firearms, should raise the awareness of all Pennsylvania hunting license holders. 

In the months and years ahead, hunters and their way of life will face many new attacks, some unforeseeable from our current position in history.  Already the extremists in the environmental conflict industry have mounted their argument to prevent federal lands from being managed for the benefit of wildlife.  That the financial benefactors of these environmental extremists also have anti-gunners in their camp should be ample warning that, if it hasn’t already, there will soon be a formal marriage of these anti-hunting ideologies and it matters little which camp succeeds first; a ban on hunting or outlawing guns. 

Many of our game birds and animals are dependent on what wildlife biologists refer to as “edges,” the place where different types of habitats meet like fields, forest openings and riparian areas.  When management of this important habitat becomes a legislative and judicial process rather than a series of thoroughly studied decisions made by trained foresters and wildlife biologists, many of our non game species suffer the consequences as well.   

Pennsylvania’s wildlife, and the sportsmen who have spent enormous amounts of their own money to insure their survival, should not end up paying the bill because someone has a screwdriver and a desire to take away the richness of our hunting heritage.