AR-News: (PA) Anti Fund for Animals column

[Verush at aol.com]

Sportsmen don't need Heidi's help

By: Tom Venesky 02/15/2004

An animal rights organization has apparently expanded its boundaries and is 
now working as defenders of our state's Constitution. 


The Fund for Animals is opposing a bill (HB 1512) that would add an amendment 
to the state Constitution providing for the right to hunt and fish. The bill 
was passed by the House on Monday 189-11, and is now before the Senate.
According to Heidi Prescott, national director of the group, the amendment is 
"inappropriate and redundant" because hunting and fishing is already enjoyed 
in Pennsylvania "without that 'right' enshrined in the constitution."
What Prescott fails to realize is the amendment is needed because of what her 
organization is trying to do.
Currently, the fund is opposing numerous hunting and trapping seasons in 
various states. And Prescott doesn't think the right to hunt should be protected 
by our constitution?
Prescott was quoted in a recent Associated Press story as stating, "The 
citizens of Pennsylvania do not need to add a silly provision protecting a 
recreational hobby."
Yes we do Heidi, and it's because of people like you.
State Rep. Ed Staback, one of the bill's sponsors, said the amendment doesn't 
just protect the right to hunt and fish, but protects those activities from 
organizations like Prescott's.
Staback pointed out that animal rights groups have tried to ban bear hunting 
in New Jersey and are attempting to ban bear baiting in Maine.
"In light of that, how can she say our rights our insured or guaranteed? They 
are only insured and guaranteed when these groups don't have the ability to 
arbitrarily come into a state and decide to make the kind of changes they'd 
like to see," Staback said.
And what are those changes? "To outlaw hunting, fishing and trapping all over 
the world. That's their ultimate goal," Staback added.
Prescott's stance reeks of hypocrisy and ignorance. Who is she to tell the 
residents of Pennsylvania that we do not need this "silly" provision as she sits 
in the cozy confines of her New York City office?
I also find it interesting the Fund for Animals is now doubling as a freedom 
fighter for our constitutional rights when they are fighting to take away 
rights from others.
The group is waging active campaigns to prevent numerous stores from selling 
fur. Isn't it the right of the merchant to choose what he or she sells in 
their own store?
In my opinion, the group's opposition to the bill is placed solely on the 
fact that it will make it harder for them to chip away at our right to hunt and 
fish.
The Fund for Animals has offices in several states but not in Pennsylvania. 
As far as the interest in the welfare of our constitution, we decline your 
help Heidi. Our constitution is just fine without your half-truths and 
misconceptions. 

Tom Venesky can be reached at tvenesky at citizensvoice.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.envirolink.org/pipermail/ar-news/attachments/20040216/f06ef1a2/attachment.html