December 12, 2019

LA Proposes Ban on All Furs

It seems that today’s writing theme is melding into “As in the days of Noah,” with the presence of decadence and insanity.

God gave us the resources to use for normal and natural reasons. Prohibiting the use thereof for perverse and misguided reasons is as insane as anyone can get.

Insanity is NOT recognized with the insane and is vehemently denied.

“This is something that is not just a good legislative win, it’s a moral win,” Councilman Bob Blumenfield said. “We feel like we’re evolving as a city as people to stop this kind of unnecessary cruelty.””<<<Read More Nonsense>>>

Share

ALERT! Federal Legislation Would Ban Trapping on All Wildlife Refuges!

Press Release from the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance:

Take Action Today! Sportsmen’s Alliance members should contact their Congressman or Congresswoman today and ask them to vote NO on HR 1438. HR 1438 has been assigned to the House Committee on Natural Resources. Members can contact their legislator by using the Sportsmen’s Alliance’s Legislative Action Center.

New York Congresswoman Nita Lowey, a longtime opponent of hunting rights, has introduced legislation that would ban trapping on national wildlife refuge lands. House Resolution 1438 known as the Refuge from Cruel Trapping Act, would ban body gripping, foothold and snare traps on more than 150 million acres of federal land.

In a statement released on her website, Lowey writes: “We must restore the true meaning of ‘refuge’ to the National Wildlife Refuge System.” Additionally, Lowey also quotes Born Free USA, a long-time anti-trapping organization. Their quote incorrectly states that “The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is clear: to be an inviolate sanctuary for our native wildlife.”

Despite the lofty rhetoric and misleading statements, the National Wildlife Refuge System was not designed to be sanctuary for animals; instead, it was specifically designed to include hunting, fishing and trapping. Moreover, in 1997 Congress approved the National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act, which identified hunting, which includes trapping, as a priority use of refuge land. The law was signed by President Bill Clinton. In addition, trapping is an effective tool for controlling predators, which can negatively impact other wildlife on refuge lands.

“It’s clear from her statements that Representative Lowey does not have a firm handle on the purpose of these lands, or how the funds used to manage them for the benefit of all species are derived, ” said Evan Heusinkveld, president and CEO of the Sportsmen’s Alliance. “It’s not surprising that such a distorted view would lead to legislation like this. And it’s no surprise that Representative Lowey is rated a ‘Humane Champion’ by the Humane Society of America’s Legislative Fund.”

Trapping is utilized across the United States, by both federal and state wildlife managers. Refuge land is managed in cooperation with state fish and wildlife agencies. HR 1438 would put a one-size-fits-all federal ban in place for refuges rather than allow state biologists do what is best for individual refuge properties. The traps that would be banned by HR 1438 are the most common and effective devices used by trappers. HR 1438 is a first step to ban hunting on all federal land and should be rejected.

Share

Bishop Statement on Obama’s Use of 12(a) in the Arctic and Atlantic

Press Release from the House Committee on Natural Resources:

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 20, 2016

Today, President Obama banned offshore acreage in the Arctic and the Atlantic using section 12(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) issued the following statement:

“The extremes to which this president will go to appease special interests never ceases to amaze. This is not a moral calling, it’s an abuse of power. Scratch below the façade of pragmatism and it is nothing more than ideological chest-thumping from the president for the far left.

“This White House fails to understand that America’s offshore is the foundation of our energy strength, and its responsible development has served to insulate families and businesses from the whims of global oil cartels such as OPEC. This naïve and unprecedented executive action undercuts our competitiveness and threatens regional economies across the country.”

Share

Lionizing Cecil Makes Us Feel Good, But a Trophy Hunting Ban Will Accelerate Slaughter

If you fly over parts of Tsavo today—and I challenge anyone to do so, if you have the eyes for it – you can see lines of snares set out in funnel traps that extend four or five miles. Tens of thousands of animals are being killed annually for the meat business. Carnivores are being decimated in the same snares and discarded.

Source: Lionizing Cecil Makes Us Feel Good, But a Trophy Hunting Ban Will Accelerate Slaughter | California Magazine

Share

Feds to Ban Kids’ Soft Plastic Toys for No Good Reason

Press Release from the National Center for Public Policy Research:

Consumer Product Safety Commission Fails to Adhere to Guidelines During Process of Phthalate Alternative Rulemaking

Proposed Rule to Ban Chemicals is Invalid Because it Uses Outdated Data

New York, NY/Washington, DC – The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) is once again pushing the boundaries of its regulatory authority by preparing to issue a rule on the basis of outdated data and faulty reasoning. Long known for its overzealous over-regulation, the CPSC voted to move forward in late December last year with a draft rule that would ban children’s toys and child care articles containing specified phthalates.

Phthalates are used in a variety of consumer goods to make them more durable and to prevent plastics from shattering. The circumstances surrounding CPSC’s ruling fly in the face of any pretense of scientific reasoning, objectivity, or transparency.

Below is an excerpt of comments submitted by Jeff Stier, Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research and the head of the Risk Analysis Division (RAD):

What’s worse, even though CPSC was aware of this fatal flaw in the CHAP report, it relied on this aspect of the report, ignoring these concerns that would have surely been raised had the CHAP report been subject to open peer review.

The supposed logic of the extension of the DINP ban is that all exposure, no matter how remote, is a problem.

The CHAP report didn’t even justify an expansion in a direct manner, rather leaving CPSC to conjecture as to a basis for the ban…

When Congress passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act in 2008, it did not give the CPSC power to remove safe products from the marketplace if the effect of such a ban would be minimal. It simply didn’t give CPSC power to remove products that were safe, or that could only be shown to present a risk based on old exposure data we know to be no-longer accurate.

To view Jeff’s full submission, click here.

The CPSC is still accepting comments from the public. To submit your own comments, visit regulations.gov at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=CPSC-2014-0033

New York City-based Jeff Stier is a Senior Fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research in Washington, D.C., and heads its Risk Analysis Division. Stier is a frequent guest on CNBC, and has addressed health policy on CNN, Fox News Channel and MSNBC, as well as network newscasts. Stier’s National Center op-eds have been published in top outlets, including the Los Angeles Times, the New York Post, Newsday, Forbes, the Washington Examiner and National Review Online. He also frequently discusses risk issues on Twitter at @JeffaStier.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, three percent from foundations, and three percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Sign up for free issue alerts here and go here to make a tax-deductible contribution to help us fight for liberty.

Share

UMass Drops Ban of Iranian Students From “Nuke” Classes

After consulting with the State Department, the university announced Thursday that it would drop the ban put into effect earlier in the month and continue to allow Iranian students to enroll in graduate classes in chemical, electrical, computer, mechanical, and industrial engineering, microbiology, physics, and polymer science.<<<Read More>>>

Share

Bringing Wolves Back: “That is no Good!”

Today I was reading through an article about how wolves had returned to France and are now being found on the outskirts of Paris. For some, with extremely ill minds, returning wolves (actually probably wild dogs) is even better than France being liberated from Hitler’s Nazis.

As I was reading, I recalled a comment I had read a bit ago that was written by James Beers, a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist, who, during his tour of duty in Washington, D.C., traveled to Europe to meet with delegates from the European Union, Canada and Russia. At this time, around about 1998, the European Union, firmly in the grasp of the environmental movement, was attempting to ban the importation of furs from the United States, Canada and Russia.

During a roundtable discussion that took place early in 2010 with Jim Beers, Dr. Valerius Geist, Bill Hoppe, Robert Fanning, Will Graves and Dr. Delane Kritsky, Beers recalled a comment made to him by a Russian government representative (wolf technician) during one particular meeting. Here’s that comment:

BEERS: It is ironic you should mention the Finn solution. In 1998 I was involved in traveling to Europe multiple times that year fighting European unions’ attempt to ban the import of furs. The United States worked very closely with Canada and Russia to do that and we were having lunch one day arranged lunch by the Europe Union and there were two Russian representatives there one with a Ph.D. from Moscow and the other a wolf technician from a region close to Siberia. The technician sat next to me and we got along real well in the meetings. He actually said to me about halfway through the meeting . . . he said Mr. Beers, “Can I ask you something?” I said “sure.” I thought we were going to talk about fur bearers because he was really into sables and the export of furs, but he said, “Is it true that your country is bringing wolves back and protecting them and trying to breed them?” He looked at me right in my eyes and he was unbelieving. I said, “It’s true . . . they’ve just done that in Yellowstone Park.” And I said, “I don’t know where that’s going to lead.” And he actually said to me, “That is no good . . . I do not understand how you ever beat us in the Cold War.” I’ve since reflected on this Russians incredulity at the U.S. folly and the humor of this guy wondering with our bungling mentality on this matter, how we could have ever beaten them.” (emboldening added)

Some may disregard anything the Russians might have to say about wolves but they have been studying and “living with” wolves for a very, very long time. When the United States Fish and Wildlife Service decided they were going to force wolves onto people and lie about it all, one thing that they DID NOT do during the compilation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the Final EIS, was talk to anybody in Europe, Finland or Russia; actually not one ounce of effort was put into communicating with countries world wide that had dealt with wolves for centuries. The USFWS obviously had an agenda and they wasn’t going to have it ruined by employing any truth about wolves.

Coming from a man from a country that knows about wolves, willingly going about bringing wolves into a country and protecting them so they can breed, “That is no good!”

That is no good!

Share

The Nanny State Can Get You Killed

New York, Los Angeles, Chicago Move to Restrict Devices that Help Smokers Quit

New York, NY – On the same day the Los Angeles City Council moved to regulate e-cigarettes, the National Center for Public Policy Research’s Jeff Stier testified at a New York City Council Health Committee hearing on a similar measure being rushed through the New York City Council.

In his testimony, the New York-based Stier, who heads the National Center’s Risk Analysis Division, encouraged council members to think twice about whether it is in fact “prudent” to extend New York City’s ban on smoking in public places to include e-cigarettes:

“I would caution you that this is not the prudent thing to do. The prudent thing to do here is to help cigarette smokers quit. Rushing to judgment here could have serious, unintended consequences that you need to be aware of. It will stop people from quitting smoking. E-cigarettes are not a gateway to smoking. The data does not show that. E-cigarettes are a gateway to quitting smoking.”

E-cigarettes, which do not produce smoke, have been a boon to those who have tried to quit smoking but have failed.

“Nicotine,” Stier explains, “is addictive, but not particularly harmful, especially at the levels consumed by smokers or users of e-cigarettes, who are called ‘vapers’ for the vapor, rather than smoke, emitted by e-cigarettes.”

“Nicotine’s bad reputation should be attributed to its most common delivery device, cigarettes,” says Stier. “Nicotine itself is about as dangerous as the caffeine in soda. Along the same lines, while too much soda can cause weight gain, nobody seriously suggests that caffeine causes obesity. Similarly, e-cigarettes provide the nicotine and the habitual activity of smoking, without the danger of burning tobacco.”

“Mayor Bloomberg and his nanny state allies in New York City and Los Angeles have steam coming out of their ears about e-cigarettes. Here is a product created by private-sector innovation that is doing what many hundreds of millions of dollars of government spending, costly litigation, addictive excise taxes, warning labels and punitive regulation have been unable to do: help cigarette smokers quit happily. ”

“Regulators understand that in order to maintain not only their huge budgets, but their basis for authority to control both private-sector businesses as well as personal decisions, they must demonize, delegitimize, and defeat e-cigarettes every step of the way,” Stier says.

“Some, without any basis in science, allege that e-cigarettes are a ‘gateway’ to smoking. But initial studies, as well as empirical evidence, show that e-cigarettes are a major gateway away from, not toward, smoking. For all the heated rhetoric, there’s little dispute in the scientific community: those who quit smoking cigarettes and switch to e-cigarettes reap immediate as well as long-term health benefits. And those improvements are dramatic.”

Stier concludes: “Regulations that treat e-cigarettes the same as their deadly predecessor will have the unintended consequence of keeping smokers smoking. Quitting nicotine use altogether is the best choice. But for those who chose not to, or find it too difficult, e-cigarettes are a potentially life-saving alternative.”

Outgoing New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, nicknamed “Nanny Bloomberg” by many for his use of government tools to influence what private citizens eat and drink, supports the New York proposal. Bloomberg’s administration imposed New York City’s ban on public smoking in 2003.

Like Los Angeles and New York, Chicago is considering banning the use of smokeless e-cigarettes anywhere in the city tobacco smoking is banned. The proposed ban is supported by Mayor Rahm Emanuel. The sale of e-cigarettes to minors is already appropriately illegal under Illinois state law.

The National Center for Public Policy Research, founded in 1982, is a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank. Ninety-four percent of its support comes from individuals, less than four percent from foundations, and less than two percent from corporations. It receives over 350,000 individual contributions a year from over 96,000 active recent contributors.

Contributions are tax-deductible and greatly appreciated.

Share

W. Hollywood Bans Sale of Fur Within City Limits

West Hollywood has become the first city in the nation to ban the sale of fur within the city limits.

Tom Remington

Share