# WE NEED TO STOP THIS!



## Lee192233 (Aug 12, 2021)

Please sign this petition. They're trying to stop the interstate transportation of wild game meat!









Sign petition to oppose anti-hunting regulations by activist groups


Radical anti-hunting groups want to infringe on your time-honored hunting traditions. If they have their way, you won’t be able to take game meat of any kind across state lines. What’s more, they want to send conservation funds - largely paid for by hunters - overseas. Don’t let these radical...




ducks.quorum.us


----------



## Ronaldo (Aug 12, 2021)

Done!
Thanks,


----------



## Lee192233 (Aug 13, 2021)

Ronaldo said:


> Done!
> Thanks,


Thanks for signing. Share it with everyone you can think of. It's time hunters made a statement.


----------



## old CB (Aug 13, 2021)

I was all set to sign the above petition, but decided first to check the background. I read carefully through the 34 pgs of what the petition claims to be against, namely:
"August 3, 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council, submitted a petition (the Petition) to the United States Department of Interior and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the Department use existing regulatory authority to ban the transport of wildlife and wild game meat across state lines, and to issue regulations instituting a comprehensive chain-of-custody system for all plants and wildlife imported into or exported from the United States."

The 34-page NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity petition to the Dept. of Interior is entirely about *International commercial trade* in wildlife & wildlife parts, and says nothing about moving wildlife across state lines. In fact, their petition makes it clear that private and home use (in other words hunters & fishermen) are exempted from such regulations when transporting wildlife and parts across International borders--as in bringing game across, say, the Canadian or Mexican border.

Sign the above petition if you like, but it's based on a misunderstanding. There is no move by the NRDC or Center for Biological Diversity to outlaw or limit your ability to move your deer, ducks, coon, furbearers, or whatever across state lines. When that day comes, however, I'll be first in line to fight such a move.

Here's a link to the actual petition filed Aug. 3, 2021 by those groups. Read it yourself. It has nothing to do with interstate movement of game: 


https://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/international/pdfs/FWS-ban-tracing-funding-petition.pdf


----------



## esshup (Aug 13, 2021)

old CB said:


> I was all set to sign the above petition, but decided first to check the background. I read carefully through the 34 pgs of what the petition claims to be against, namely:
> "August 3, 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council, submitted a petition (the Petition) to the United States Department of Interior and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the Department use existing regulatory authority to ban the transport of wildlife and wild game meat across state lines, and to issue regulations instituting a comprehensive chain-of-custody system for all plants and wildlife imported into or exported from the United States."
> 
> The 34-page NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity petition to the Dept. of Interior is entirely about *International commercial trade* in wildlife & wildlife parts, and says nothing about moving wildlife across state lines. In fact, their petition makes it clear that private and home use (in other words hunters & fishermen) are exempted from such regulations when transporting wildlife and parts across International borders--as in bringing game across, say, the Canadian or Mexican border.
> ...


If that is true, then why is "requesting that the Department use existing regulatory authority to ban the transport of wildlife and wild game meat across state lines" in there??

The "and" in that sentence means that there are 3 things that they want done. 1) ban transport of wildlife across state lines, 2) ban transport of wild game meat across state lines, 3) require a conprehensive chain-of-custody for all plants and wildlife imported or exported from the United States.


----------



## old CB (Aug 13, 2021)

esshup said:


> If that is true, then why is "requesting that the Department use existing regulatory authority to ban the transport of wildlife and wild game meat across state lines" in there??
> 
> The "and" in that sentence means that there are 3 things that they want done. 1) ban transport of wildlife across state lines, 2) ban transport of wild game meat across state lines, 3) require a conprehensive chain-of-custody for all plants and wildlife imported or exported from the United States.


Your quoted portion appears nowhere in what was submitted in the original thing that is being protested here. That language appears only in the petition on the Ducks Unlimited page. Read the link I posted and see for yourself.

Also, I mean no disrespect to Lee192233, as I am fully against any attempt by animal rights groups to limit or prohibit our hunting rights. But the above petition fights a battle against no such enemy. The thing protested against deals only with international import export, and threatens us hunters, fishermen, and sportsmen in no way.


----------



## Brushwacker (Aug 13, 2021)

Done


----------



## Lee192233 (Aug 13, 2021)

Ducks Unlimited sent me the link. My thought is if they're worried, I'm worried. Generally if the Center for Biological Diversity backs something I'm very suspicious of it. Also it appears they want US conservation monies to be diverted internationally. There's no way in hell I want my money paid into US Conservation by the the Pittman Robertson Act to be diverted internationally. These Fish and Wildlife rules have wide interpretations depending upon the current administration. How will guys hunting in Canada or Mexico be affected? Will they require so much paperwork to cross the border that it makes it difficult/impossible to meet the requirements? These groups just litigate and make ridiculous rules to effectively ban hunting.

I just don't want to take the chance and I believe DU lawyers exponentially more than any animal rights group. It's ignorant to think there is no underlying reason they want to do this.

Thanks to all who signed.


----------



## esshup (Aug 14, 2021)

I signed it because of this sentence. " Generally live animals pose the greatest risk of disease conveyance, but trade in products, parts, and other dead specimens also poses a disease risk."

If that is passed, then it basically kills any animal trapping here in the USA and kills all the mink farms. Most of the furs that are trapped are exported, and without exporting the furs the fur market will be gone to anybody here in the USA.

How do they expect to stop birds from crossing the border during their migration route?


----------



## sean donato (Aug 14, 2021)

Signed, and passed on to some family and friends.


----------



## arathol (Aug 19, 2021)

Geez....*nobody is banning anything* except the unregulated and uncontrolled importation of wildlife that may pose a threat to people and native species of wildlife....Just read the proposed amendments starting on page 20, it is pretty clear. What this proposal is doing is implementing much stricter controls on the importation and exportation of wildlife and wildlife by-products by requiring extensive documentation and inspection for anything being imported or exported. Its a proactive attempt to control spread of disease to wildlife and humans in the US by limiting and regulating importation of such wildlife that could possibly be infected, stopping the spread before it happens. It will also limit the probability of destructive non-native invasive species being released into the wild here. In that respect, it can only be a benefit to hunters here in this country.


----------



## slowp (Aug 19, 2021)

The Center for.....is an organization that was started by two guys who couldn't even afford the gas to go out in the real world and walk through a timber sale they were appealing. Or so they said on the phone and then said they knew from reading papers that the timber sale was bad. They appealed timber sales in the Southwest at first and due to some not so meticulous work on the environmental paperwork, made money by suing the government. They were originally the Southwest Center for Biodiversity and then branched out to start suing the government in other areas of the country. They've done well for themselves. Timber sales are not as numerous so they've started lawsuits on many other proposed activities. 

I won't sign the petition. I am too lazy to read the original documents right now so therefore don't know enough about it to sign. Sounds like the original bit was written up to appeal to emotions. Thank you Old CB for doing the research.


----------



## JustPlainJeff (Aug 19, 2021)

old CB said:


> I was all set to sign the above petition, but decided first to check the background. I read carefully through the 34 pgs of what the petition claims to be against, namely:
> "August 3, 2021, the Center for Biological Diversity and the Natural Resources Defense Council, submitted a petition (the Petition) to the United States Department of Interior and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service requesting that the Department use existing regulatory authority to ban the transport of wildlife and wild game meat across state lines, and to issue regulations instituting a comprehensive chain-of-custody system for all plants and wildlife imported into or exported from the United States."
> 
> The 34-page NRDC and Center for Biological Diversity petition to the Dept. of Interior is entirely about *International commercial trade* in wildlife & wildlife parts, and says nothing about moving wildlife across state lines. In fact, their petition makes it clear that private and home use (in other words hunters & fishermen) are exempted from such regulations when transporting wildlife and parts across International borders--as in bringing game across, say, the Canadian or Mexican border.
> ...


I applaud your investigating into something prior to jumping on a bandwagon for not just this, but anything. If you're going to make a decision, make AN INFORMED decision on whatever the subject is. I haven't read the attached article yet, but I can guarantee you that I will read it, and comprehend it myself before I sign anything, especially a petition. Too many people hear one phrase or statement and jump to a decision without even knowing exactly they're approving of or protesting against.


----------



## sean donato (Aug 21, 2021)

Anti-Hunting Groups Are Going For The Jugular


The mechanisms they would impose include a complete ban on interstate transport of not just live animals, but also the meat, hide, horns, antlers and skulls of harvested animals




www.ammoland.com




Some more information


----------



## arathol (Aug 21, 2021)

sean donato said:


> Anti-Hunting Groups Are Going For The Jugular
> 
> 
> The mechanisms they would impose include a complete ban on interstate transport of not just live animals, but also the meat, hide, horns, antlers and skulls of harvested animals
> ...


More *incorrect *information......
Nowhere in the source document does it make reference to transporting legally harvested native game animals across state lines. What it does specifically reference is importing and exporting wildlife to and from other countries......


----------



## old CB (Aug 21, 2021)

arathol said:


> More *incorrect *information......


Yes, it is simply the same reactionary misinformation being passed around from one site to another.

Anti-hunting groups are out there. But nothing about hunters transporting meat or animals in the United States is proposed in the thing being protested here.


----------

