There is much to absorb these days regarding the future of hunting, fishing and trapping, both in Wisconsin and nationwide. The battles are many, and time and energy are limited, so it's important to pick your spots with great care.
Where to put the emphasis, of course, depends on one's interpretation of each priority. Some issues may not have significant impact, regardless of the outcome. But they often take on a life of their own and generate much enthusiasm.
One of these is the push to grant the Natural Resources Board authority to appoint the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, rather than the governor. More on that later.
Others are more obscure and rarely make the headlines of the outdoors pages, but they may have far-reaching and potentially devastating affect on the rights of hunters and other sportsmen and women. Such is the case with the appointment of Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago to a high-ranking position within the Federal Budget Office.
Sunstein is the president's choice to head the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). According to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, OIRA can block or overturn regulations that protect hunting while hurting conservation efforts.
According to a USSA press release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has put a temporary "hold" on the appointment, based on Sunstein's history as an advocate for the animal rights movement and his reputation as an radical anti-hunter. The organization urges sportsmen and women to lobby against the appointment to ensure that the hold stays in place.
The USSA points to a 20-page essay Sunstein authored while on the faculty of the University of Chicago. Among other alarming statements, Sunstein suggests,"We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation." He also supports lawsuits on behalf of animals, currently allowed only for human beings.
Sunstein's essay is a scholarly work, listing four pages of references to support his positions. One of these is 19th Century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who, he contends, believed that the mistreatment of animals was akin to slavery and racial discrimination, an argument with which another noted philosopher of the time, John Stewart Mill, apparently concurred.
"My position has radical implications of its own," Sunstein announces with apparent pride. While he acknowledges that laws already in place protect animals from acts of cruelty and require proper care and feeding, it appears these rules do not go far enough.
Sunstein urges "extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments and agriculture.
"In my view, those uses might well be seen, one hundred years hence, to be a form of unconscionable barbarity," he suggests. USSA worries that, once given adequate power and control, Sunstein will move up that timetable for the incorporation of his views into public policy.
Regarding the appointment authority for the DNR secretary, the Wisconsin Assembly held a public hearing on the matter earlier this week. I was urged to attend, but a long-awaited medical appointment got in the way.
It's just as well. While transferring appointment authority from the governor to the NRB would probably work fine as it did prior to 1995, the change will not remove politics from the equation as proponents argue is the primary reason for the switch.
The governor still appoints members to the NRB, and these are unquestionably political appointments. While one hopes that any appointment to that body is merit-based and any future DNR secretary will be a strong advocate for conservation, political influence will invariably remain a factor.
-Lee Fahrney is the Monroe Times outdoors writer. He can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
Where to put the emphasis, of course, depends on one's interpretation of each priority. Some issues may not have significant impact, regardless of the outcome. But they often take on a life of their own and generate much enthusiasm.
One of these is the push to grant the Natural Resources Board authority to appoint the secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, rather than the governor. More on that later.
Others are more obscure and rarely make the headlines of the outdoors pages, but they may have far-reaching and potentially devastating affect on the rights of hunters and other sportsmen and women. Such is the case with the appointment of Cass R. Sunstein of the University of Chicago to a high-ranking position within the Federal Budget Office.
Sunstein is the president's choice to head the powerful Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA). According to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance, OIRA can block or overturn regulations that protect hunting while hurting conservation efforts.
According to a USSA press release, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, has put a temporary "hold" on the appointment, based on Sunstein's history as an advocate for the animal rights movement and his reputation as an radical anti-hunter. The organization urges sportsmen and women to lobby against the appointment to ensure that the hold stays in place.
The USSA points to a 20-page essay Sunstein authored while on the faculty of the University of Chicago. Among other alarming statements, Sunstein suggests,"We might ban hunting altogether, at least if its sole purpose is human recreation." He also supports lawsuits on behalf of animals, currently allowed only for human beings.
Sunstein's essay is a scholarly work, listing four pages of references to support his positions. One of these is 19th Century philosopher Jeremy Bentham, who, he contends, believed that the mistreatment of animals was akin to slavery and racial discrimination, an argument with which another noted philosopher of the time, John Stewart Mill, apparently concurred.
"My position has radical implications of its own," Sunstein announces with apparent pride. While he acknowledges that laws already in place protect animals from acts of cruelty and require proper care and feeding, it appears these rules do not go far enough.
Sunstein urges "extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, scientific experiments and agriculture.
"In my view, those uses might well be seen, one hundred years hence, to be a form of unconscionable barbarity," he suggests. USSA worries that, once given adequate power and control, Sunstein will move up that timetable for the incorporation of his views into public policy.
Regarding the appointment authority for the DNR secretary, the Wisconsin Assembly held a public hearing on the matter earlier this week. I was urged to attend, but a long-awaited medical appointment got in the way.
It's just as well. While transferring appointment authority from the governor to the NRB would probably work fine as it did prior to 1995, the change will not remove politics from the equation as proponents argue is the primary reason for the switch.
The governor still appoints members to the NRB, and these are unquestionably political appointments. While one hopes that any appointment to that body is merit-based and any future DNR secretary will be a strong advocate for conservation, political influence will invariably remain a factor.
-Lee Fahrney is the Monroe Times outdoors writer. He can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
