Friday, January 27, 2012

Unintended consequences - how animal rights activists expedite extinction

Let me explain to "animal rights" acitivsts what is about to happen.  There is a little something called "unintended consequences."  It is usually what happens between the time a thought comes from your (nutty activist) brain and application in the real world. 

A case in 2009 - Friends of Animals (FOA) v Salazar - was tried in Federal court (Washington D.C., surprise surprise) and the court ruled that a previous exemption from the endangered species act for certain species of antelope should not be valid.  Among those are Dama Gazelle, Scimitar-Horned Oryx and Addax.  All of these animals are extinct or very near extinction in their native habitat.  Where are they thriving?  Hunting ranches, mostly in Texas.  You see, contrary to what some people will tell you, hunters are the main reason that these animals even exist in the numbers that they do today.  These animals have VALUE to the ranches on which they live and in the market.  It would be ridiculous for a rancher to destroy something that is worth money to him.  Therefore, ranchers want herds of these animals.  If possible, large herds and breeding herds.  They are very interested that these herds stay healthy and happy and are fed well because they have VALUE to the rancher.  In my previous life, I have guided or helped guide hunts on all three of these species and I will tell you that hunts for them were not all that common and the hunter paid well to take one of them (hence value to the owner).  For your information, this was a plan implemented successfully by the U.S. Department of the Interior (Ken Salazar, plaintiff in the suit) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.  I worked on a ranch that worked to sell the animals to re-establish herds back to their native habitat.  Awesome all-around win, right?

Now, the decision on this court case takes effect in April of this year.  Here is where I get to explain to FOA and activists in general what your short-sightedness will bring.  Now the owners of the animals that must PAY to feed them will be required to purchase permits to have them (they are worth that much less) and also obtain permits and authorization to cull any of them (now even less).  The restrictions will tighten and the "permits" to cull will be difficult to actually obtain.  Captive populations of these animals will constantly decline until the only place you will be able to see them is in a zoo.  That's right.  Congratulations, FOA you are going to be responsible for the elimination of a large population of endangered animals.  Yay for you, though you don't sound like much of a "friend".  We'll see you in a few years when you are back in court trying to make the ranch owners pay to increase their populations again after they rid themselves of herds which have turned from something of value into a financial burden. 

Well, how does the ranch owner reduce their population?  They can't sell them and won't be allowed to hunt them, you say.  You see, people that work with animals know animals better than any activist or federal judge.  I know that the life span of most deer and antelope is pretty short (12 years tops for a dama and 20 tops for an Addax or Scimitar).  The ranchers will separate herds so there will be no breeding.  Why continue breeding something that has no value and is only an expense?  Within 20 years at the most, the large herds of these that I would regularly on the ranch will be gone.  Just so you will know, FOA, now as their teeth wear to nothing they will die from starvation (yay, nature!) instead of being culled as they get older and start to decline in health.  The ranchers will begin to replace the herds with animals that will make them money.

Basically, a free market has allowed multiple endangered animals to thrive in healthy herds totalling in the thousands of animals.  Enter the federal judge (we're here to help) and animal rights activists.  Regulations come into play and the value declines or disappears.  Kiss the product good-bye. 

So, if you want to see a beautiful, ranging herd of these animals, I recommend booking a tour at the closest hunting ranch you can find within the next few years.  After that you'll have to explain to your kids why the zoo is the only place they exist.

6 comments:

  1. Excellent post and I know your point is one they NEVER considered!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rarely do they ever consider the actual consequences. As always, they go with emotion instead of their brain. Thanks, NFO.

      Delete
  2. They don't have a clue. Good info 45er. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for commenting, John. You're right, completely clueless. The local game ranches here are already considering what to do to get rid of their animals.

      Delete
  3. More than likely the ranchers they will have a tree "fall" on a fence, a fence will be cut, etc. before this absurd law takes effect and the animals will escape. They will claim a loss on insurance & taxes. Then they will become a free range feral species just like the Audad we have.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Rich, thanks for stopping by and commenting. What you are saying is absolutely true. I thought about that. That is exactly what happened when the Emu bubble popped and all of a sudden there were free-range ratites everywhere. While I *know* this will probably happen, I'm thinking it might be more suspect with restricted species. My guess is that since the court case and before the implementation in April, there will be a whole lot of reduced price hunts as well.

      Delete