View Single Post
Old 02-16-2007, 01:42 PM   #17
Buckethead's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Olean NY
Posts: 124
Originally Posted by coolrobc View Post
Good Point, I agree with just about everything else you stated in your argument above.

This is the only bill I could find that he directly sponsored (pertinent to the discussion at hand), which was referenced by the article I posted above.

In this Bill, it seems to be an attempt to override the authority of the DEC's trapping laws, by allowing counties to enact legislation limiting or prohibiting trapping within the given municipality.


That in and by itself does not really say he is against trapping. What is does say is that counties who want different standards than NYS provides may do so. Local, responsible management of the species based on voter's opinions would win with me every time.

below is an example from the proposed amendment:

"Trappers and wildlife managers play on the public`s fear of rabies and
other diseases by arguing that trapping is necessary to control the
spread of disease. However, the Centers for Disease Control, the
National Academy of Sciences, and the World Health Organization, as well
as many other scientific, public health, and veterinary organizations,
disagree. The National Academy of Sciences subcommittee on rabies
concluded that, "Persistent trapping or poisoning campaigns as a means
to rabies control should be abolished. There is no evidence that these
costly and politically attractive programs reduce either wildlife reser-
voirs or rabies incidence. The money can be better spent on research,
vaccination, compensation to stockmen for losses, education and warning

Rather, trapping can actually increase the spread of disease. 17 By
removing mature animals who have acquired immunity to disease, trappers
make room for newcomers who may not be immune. In addition, animals
infected with rabies do not eat during the latter stages of the disease,
and therefore do not respond to baited traps. Hence, traps set in an
area infected with rabies will more than likely capture healthy animals
rather than infected animals, thereby increasing the likelihood that the
disease will spread."

That, to me looks like a pretty good argument, depending on the science which it was based on. Every amendment, and bill brought to a vote is just someone's opinion on how things should be done. In this instance, the bill is citing a "public safety" issue, real or imagined. I personally didn't like the wording of the first paragraph, but either way the author has a valid point. I would not reject this candidate based on that example.
Buckethead is offline