Urge Your Representative Vote Yes on H.J. 69, Overturning Harmful Alaska Regulation

Safari Club International
Safari Club International

U.S.A.-(Ammoland.com)- Safari Club International (SCI) encourages all sportsmen and women to contact your U.S. Representative today and voice your support for House Joint Resolution 69.

If approved, H.J. Res. 69 will allow Congress to reverse a final rule, adopted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), that prohibits and restricts legal forms of hunting on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska.

This final FWS rule contradicts the Alaska Department of Fish and Game’s constitutional mandate to manage the state’s wildlife resources for sustained yield, which is affirmed in the Alaska Statehood Act, the Alaska National Interests Land Conservation Act, and the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act. In short, the FWS regulation that H.J. Res. 69 will nullify is one that interferes with the State of Alaska’s ability to provide adequate wildlife for the state’s hunters.

With your help, H.J. Res. 69 will give Congress the opportunity to reverse this harmful FWS regulation adopted during the last months of the Obama Administration. It is imperative that you contact your Representative today and urge him/her to vote Yes on H.J. Res. 69. You must act NOW, as this Resolution is anticipated to be voted on the House floor tomorrow Thursday, February 16.

SCI, along with 26 other hunter conservation groups, signed a letter supporting H.J. Res. 69 (previously identified as H.J. Res. 49), which has been sent to House Speaker Paul Ryan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy. That letter provides additional details about the FWS regulation and about H.J. Res. 69.

  • 226 thoughts on “Urge Your Representative Vote Yes on H.J. 69, Overturning Harmful Alaska Regulation

    1. Not sure how many on here have been to or are in Alaska, but being a Florida boy up there and being familiar with hunting and fishing regulations growing up, I was blown away by how protective that state is of everything… They seriously realize that wildlife needs protecting and they impliment so many rules and regs that putting the stuartship back in the staes hands and out of the Fed`s is a sane and just thng. Period… If the O administration pushed this thru late night you have to wonder.

    2. I hope all the people who are so upset about killing baby bears and baby wolves are more upset about the killing of human babies through abortion! Which is worse??? Where is the outrage for those killings?

      1. Apparently YOU have all the outrage, but not a bit for children who are actually here. They can suffer all they want because they are poor, black, homeless or disadvantaged in some way, but you can be self-righteous and above others by proclaiming YOUR disapproval of abortion. If you don’t like abortion, don’t effing have one you sanctimonious bit&h.

        1. @ThumbSucker, “…children who are actually here…” and “They can suffer…because they are poor, black, homeless…” Really, do you actually know some? I don’t believe you do. If you do it would not be difficult for you to do something for them. You are just a name caller. Poisoned mind, and poison tongue.

            1. Well, Thumb Suck, If you do something for poor homeless children, then it should not be too hard to name them. So name them!

        2. From what you say I have to believe that you must spend a lot of time helping these poor unfortunates that you speak of. Do you do so on your $ or mine, me I’m sick of these freeloaders and their defenders, like you. It is sick people like you that have created the freeloaders. I have a dilemma with abortion, on one hand I want to get rid of it, then on the other hand I love it because most of the people having them are future morons and Demon-Craps like you.

          1. @ray, At this very moment, Thought Struggle, is calling someone that he knows to help him come up with some children’s names. Well, there is Jane, Sally, and little Tyron, Jr…

        3. Go suck another part of your body that’s about the same size as your thumb, @sshole. If you’d stop sleeping around and encouraging so many women to do the same when they’re not ready or in a position to have children, there wouldn’t be so much abortion (esp as birth control, since lots of women have had several). The unborn child is a human being, ALSO, not that you would care about that… but enabling sexual irresponsibility, adultery, and callousness in general by encouraging women to destroy their own children is nothing to be proud of, @sswipe. As for calling Holly a sanctimonious b#tch for simply asking where the outrage is for innocent, slaughtered unborn children, only a sleazy, worthless piece of sh#t would attack a woman that way. As for black children, abortion was largely intended to kill black babies in inner cities and control the black population by eugenicist Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, you racist dumbass!!! I’m guessing now that you’re a woman who’s had one or more abortions, and thinks the rest of the world has to tiptoe around the subject and not express their views about abortion because you don’t like having your guilt over your own choices “triggered”. If that’s the case, deal with it, accept that you screwed up, and forgive yourself and try to do better in the future but don’t think the rest of the world is obligated to agree with abortion just to make you feel better. Also if white leftists/feminist hadn’t implemented welfare and driven black fathers out of the home, more black kids would have fathers in their lives (instead of 70% growing up without them), and they wouldn’t suffer so much. Nobody said life was easy, but if you can make a baby, you can figure out a way to take care of it, and take responsibility for the life you created… otherwise abstain or use reliable birth control.

      2. Save this for it’s proper forum. This poor communication is the reason people struggle to come together over a single issue.

    3. You people go back to sleep. All this bill does is reverse a federal take over of Alaskan lands from the Alaskan people. Go live you pathetic lives eating veggies and leave the business of Alaska to its people.

    4. All I know is regardless of whatever reason no animal should be hunted while they’re in their dens or gassed or hibernating. There should be a limit and that is just a coward and a piece of crap for anyone or to do.

    5. Yup it’s now official… Two days ago on Tuesday April 4th 2017 Trump just overturned a rule that protected our majestic wildlife in Alaska This now legally opens the door to the most heinous and disgusting anti-wildlife and pro trophy hunting techniques.
      It is vile and cruel. The majority of hunters are even against these tactics because it is so unethical. By overturning this protection rule, trump has now made it legally ok for dens to be gassed to kill wolf pups and entire families. Bears to be shot while hibernating. Hunters to lure animals with food and then shoot them at point blank range. Aerial spotting’s of bears so as to land for an easy shot. Barbaric steel grip traps and snares to be set and on and on.

        1. The repeal of the federal regulation only allows federally qualified subsistence hunters to hunt anything in its den. I don’t think that includes anyone outside of the Inuit. And of those Inuit subsistence hunters, few have done the paperwork to become “federally qualified”. The repeal of this federal regulation does return control of hunting to the state of Alaska. Now, the issue is up to the Alaskans.

          1. WB, I give you credit, you keep trying to educate these MooooooooRooooons, but to no avail. they are content to be ignorant and misinformed. You nor anyone else can penetrate their armor. Facts only confuse them momentarily.

    6. Killing bear cubs and wolf pups and their mothers has NOTHING to do with hunting – it’s nothing but the murder of babies and tells a lot about the progressive decline of the human society’s values. I’m deeply ashamed to be part of such a low and worthless species that obeys to “laws” promoting greed, enviousness, megalomania, recklessness, destruction and selfishness and condemning or even punishing compassion, decency, commitment for the weaker, protection of vital resources, wildlife and environment and all other true values without a dollar sign on it!

    7. Wild Bill – I have read your comments and come to the obvious conclusion you are an ignorant IDIOT that could never understand anything about anything. Your type make me sick.

      1. Well, Adrian, that is pretty broad. I am sure that my “type” probably does make you sick. Some people can not be hard working, self sacrificing, truth seeking defenders of their country, nation, and constitution. They just do not have it in them. And, therefore, they are sickened by jealousy and self loathing by people that have spent their lives in such pursuits. By the way, are you in England? Are you friends with Sharon?

        1. Wild Bill – yes, I do live in England where many of us abhor the type of hobby you and all the rest of the sick sadists enjoy. I cannot understand what you are saying when you talk about “sickened by jealousy and self loathing” What do you mean ?

    8. to all the neanderthals on this site who enjoy slaughtering wildlife for fun, i wish a trillion plagues, poxes, zika viruses etc. etc. on you all. you may call yourselves conservationists but you certainly put the “con” into conservation. you people are a cancer in the world, unfortunately your evil tentacles reach far and wide. i hope you reap that what you all sew and that on your deathbeds the spirits of all the creatures you slaughtered for fun, will haunt you all into perpetuity.

      1. Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha. I love to see these moorons go nuts, they are a riot, funny as hell. But very dangerous, because they have no morality, Kill a baby, OK, hunt oh no that’s bad. Fleeking nut jobs really show their self when they can’t/don’t win. It’s moorons like SH who are still crying over Trump winning the election, funny but, DANGEROUS, if they can’t have their way.

      2. @Sharon Hopkins, Because you live in England, you are not aware of the Lacy Act and the Robertson-Pittman Act. These two acts of Congress were insisted on by American Sportsman. The Lacy Act outlawed market hunting (i.e. the taking of all the animal species in large amounts for purpose of selling to restaurants, canneries, foreign buyers.)
        The Robertson-Pittman Act placed a ten percent tax on all firearms and ammunition sold in the United States (note: now it is eleven percent and applies to archery as well).
        All of the Robertson-Pittman tax monies are supposed to go for buying and improving wild life habitat, but now liberal Democrat politicians (read Barry Soetoro) use those monies for their port barrel projects.
        Absent the American hunter there would be no wild life in America (much like the socialist states in Europe).

    9. Such a bunch of ignorance in the comments. Very few that I’ve seen comment have researched what’s happening or what Alaska’s laws are in regards to the hunting practices in question. The natives – Indians or Eskimos if you will – used to hunt bear and such with spears and bows. Before guns were readily available, to get the meat and hide of bears they sometimes would kill a hibernating bear as a safe way to harvest it. There was a multi year study done from 1978 to 1987 which gathered hunting practices from all the clusters of villages inhabited by native Alaskans. Only one man was found, during the study, that had killed a bear in a den.

      Alaska’s laws for sport hunting prohibit hunting bear in dens, hunting close to garbage dumps, allow only limited baiting in specific areas, do not allow hunting bear the same day as flying, nor any animal within 300 yards of a plane, and only allow trapping of three small game animals besides the rodent tye, being otter, muskrat, etc. – Ptarmigan, Rabbits, and Grouse. The laws are actually very restrictive in the methods that any animal can be hunted.

      Try looking something up instead of arguing from ignorance.

      You morons who don’t like hunting, don’t do it. If you eat any meat at all, or use any leather or substance that’s been tested on an animal you don’t even have a right to a voice on the subject. If you do any of this, you’d better visit a slaughter house and see how the “domestic” animals are killed, and the farms to see how they’re treated when alive.

      1. Brian, Thank you for the links. I actually learned quite a bit more about the hunting, subsistence uses and cultural regard Native Alaskans have for bears. I’d suspected that Native Alaskans inherently had more respect & reason for their ‘kills’ than trophy hunters.

        However, you and many others are arguing two separate issues here. There will NEVER be any end or compromise to the ideological/ethical differences between hunters and non-hunters. That’s a separate issue from this topic, which is that this resolution seeks to introduce inhumane/unethical alleged ‘predator control’ practices into federally-funded National Wildlife Refuges where previously they were prohibited. PERIOD.

        While your other links refer to Alaskan hunting regulations in general, this Resolution refers SOLELY to altering hunting practices in Alaska’s National Wildlife Refuges.
        The previous resolution (the one this new resolution seeks to overturn) didn’t prohibit hunting on Wildlife Refuges, but merely prohibited certain practices:


        (From Section #3)”This rule prohibits the following practices for the taking of wildlife on Alaska National Wildlife refuges (except for subsistence uses by federally qualified subsistence users in accordance with applicable Federal laws and regulations):
        Taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs (exception allowed for resident hunters to take black bear cubs or sows with cubs under customary and traditional use activities at a den site October 15-April 30 in specific game management units in accordance with State law);
        Taking brown bears over bait;
        Taking of bears using traps or snares;
        Taking wolves and coyotes during the denning season (May 1-August 9); and
        Taking bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred. The take of wolves or wolverines from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred is already prohibited under current refuge regulations.”

        The overturning of these practices, btw, are deemed by even Alaskans themselves as unethical. Emotions run high. Yes. But, in your own words, facts must be argued.


        1. Jim,
          It matters not whether the rules applied to the wildlife refuge, the Alaskan laws cover it, and relating to one of your earlier comments, hunting and fishing are officially recognized as important activities in Federal Wildlife Refuges. The Department of Interior rule, which by the way only went into affect late last year, has not overturned any significant activity because it was mostly redundant. The practices are already outlawed by the State, and the State would always seek to control the population of game animals through hunting rather than spend the money and effort to partake in special predator control activities. Aside from that – if the population of a species of animal gets to the point that it needs to be reduced or overcome the balance of nature, and sport harvesting won’t reach the objective, then any easiest means, with minimal possible suffering to animals, to reduce that population short of damaging the environment should be allowed. The most humane way to eliminate a bear, if it was necessary, would be to kill it in it’s sleep rather than chase it, terrorize it, hurt it, don’t you think? An example of a necessary action would be the elimination of the Sea Lamprey in the Great Lakes through poisons, barriers, traps, and natural odors to attract them to destruction. Another example is the elimination of a large number of Whitetail Deer in a local community here in West Michigan by professional slaughterers to reduce damage to lawn decoration and gardens.

          Also, “facts must be argued” were not my words, just to keep the record straight.

      2. As a ” moron” who hates hunting or the killing of any creature for fun, I do not eat meat or wear leather. That is my contribution to the planet. As for your ridiculous comments that hunters actually love nature and protect it ? Is this some kind of joke? So, you go out with your gun, see a bear or a wolf, take aim and kill it and you call that “protect”? Has it never occurred to you that that animal you snuffed the life out of, probably had cubs to feed and they will now starve to death all because you wanted a cheap thrill to end the life of a sentient being who had as much right as you to exist (in fact that animal had MORE right than you to exist). “We cherish and enjoy wildlife and ensure that species are not eliminated”. What a load of ******* !!!! Animals control their own numbers and they don’t need YOU or any other gun-toting, trigger happy b*****d to take their life. I am not ignorant. What am I supposed to frustrate? How dare you call the killing of an innocent creature a “healthy practice”. You have a wealth of wildlife in America that you could enjoy observing and protecting (I mean real protecting) but instead of cherishing your heritage you want to “control” and “manage” it which is a euphemism for murder. No wonder there are so many gun crimes in your country with your lax gun laws with massacres at schools and cinemas etc.. Don’t expect us to shed any tears when this happens. At least we don’t have that problem in “Socialist” England. I understand you can get a gun as easy as buying candy. Well, I hope you and your mindless animal murderers reap that what you sow and what goes around comes around.

        1. @Sharon, Really, that is all that you are able to contribute? My sympathies. Yes, hunters do love wild life and work to protect the entire species. If there are too few, we do not hunt. If too many, limits are increased. Every individual of every species is going to die anyway, so the survival of the species is important. That a very few of any species is sacrificed to protect the whole species is unimportant.
          Yes, during the hunting season, we are required to check to see if the female game animal still has young with it (e.g. in MN you are required to pass on mothers with young, and collared bears). Animals do not control their own numbers. They procreate as much as the environment will allow, then the starvation die off begins. You are ignorant, and I do have a suspicion why you are frustrated. Proper game management is preferable to the cruel methods that Mother Nature uses to control populations (e.g. starvation and being torn apart and eaten alive by predator species.) Guns do not commit crime. That is a made up term. Murder only applies to the human species.

    10. GOP claim to be pro-life but guess that only applies to humans! The Republicans believe in saving a fetus over the mother who may have other children at home who are dependent on her. Guess this is the same concept.

      The GOP believe in slaughtering and killing animals by any means leaving bear cubs and wolf pups to die a slow death from dehydration and lack of nourishment.

      I very rarely expect much positive from this group. Wonder if the GOP brain is set up differently because I cannot begin to conceive how they rationalize their thoughts?

    11. Yet another document to be better informed on this entire subject. It’s the original ruling w/all the proposals & adoptions that the new HJR69 has overturned. It’s long, but if you really want to know what you’re talking about or against, it’s here. Read it or skim it. Whatever.
      You’ll note that Native Alaskan tribes were as thoroughly as possible consulted. Taking into account the remoteness and lack of technological communications. As a matter of fact it seems that Natives’ welfare was of major concern to Fish & Wildlife Dept. & the formation of that ruling.
      Additionally, that ruling SOLELY applied to the National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. Refuges consist of 76 million acres out of Alaka’s (approx.) total of 350,000 million acres, I’d say that left an awful lot of additional non-refuge land for not only native’s to hunt upon and a helluva lot of acreage for tourist or trophy hunters to explore. There was NEVER a prohibition of Native Alaskans to hunt upon Alakas’s National Refuges. The only restrictions on those refuges were on SOME of the means of those takes. i.e. Black Bear baiting was never prohibited.
      See: Black Bear Baiting:
      •…”black bear baiting is authorized in accordance with state regulations on refuges in Alaska. This change ensures consistency in the regulations…”
      Because it obviously bears repeating: The now overturned previous ruling NEVER APPLIED TO SUBSISTENCE HUNTING BY NATIVES. IT CLEARLY STATES IT PERTAINED TO NON-SUBSISTENCE HUNTING PRACTICES. As in sport/trophy hunting.
      Prohibitions for non-subsistence take of predators on refuges (i.e. sport hunting) in Alaska was enacted under the previous (now overturned) ruling “due to the potential impacts to predator populations and the environment that are inconsistent with the F&G Service’s mandates to conserve the natural and biological diversity, biological integrity and environmental health on refuges in Alaska”. IOW: It prohibited predator control on Refuges if that predator control was conducted purely for the benefit of increasing prey species.

      “Predator control is not allowed on refuges in Alaska unless it is determined to be necessary to meet refuge purposes and NOT merely for more wildlife for human harvest (i.e.: prey species),which cannot be the sole or primary basis for predator control on refuges in Alaska. 
      And for those of you who thought the previous resolution was anti-hunting:
      “The Service considers hunting to be one of many priority uses of the refuge system (when and where compatible with refuge purposes) that is a healthy, traditional outdoor pastime, deeply rooted in the American heritage. The Service fully recognizes and considers that rural residents utilize and are often dependent on refuge resources for subsistence purposes and manages for this use consistent with the conservation of species and habitats in their natural diversity. Managing for natural diversity includes avoiding emphasis of management activities favoring some species to the detriment of others and assuring that habitat diversity is maintained through natural means, avoiding artificial developments and habitat manipulation programs whenever possible.”

      I’m almost certain the only reason HJR 69 was proposed & approved was to decrease predator population in order to increase game/prey population supplies for sport/trophy hunters. It had nothing to do w/state’s rights. A mantra that’s too often flogged to death. Alaska State Gaming still holds court over what hunting practices, etc. go on in their entire remaining 275,000 million acres & they’re not totally moot in regards to Refuges’ affairs btw. They should also be mindful that Alaska tourism might take a big hit from this new resolution. Refuges bring in a helluva lot of tourist dollars to see those bears and wolves. Obviously Alaskan budget-braintrusts thinks their coffers will overflow w/cash from non-ethical hunters parading through those Refuges enough as to outweigh the dollars from those unarmed tourists who traditionally spend more.

      IMO, you don’t descimate nearly entire species w/callous, inhumane regard as to how you do it, too (if that even matters at that point) in order to just provide more non-predator/prey targets for paying customers who (a) don’t even live there; (b) hardly need the game for lack of food from their local supermarkets in the lower 48; or (c) just for thrills. In essense, all are now welcome everywhere in Alaska,, including now our national, preserved refuges, to not only inhumanely slaughter predators, but when the numbers & future generations of bears & wolves are nearly obliterated, then those ‘hunters’ can aim at the resulting overpopulating prey species no long being controlled naturally. Ironically, w/so many interlopers entering these killing fields, the subsitence supply for the Natives may be severely adversely affected. How’s that for twisted logic?

      I’ve seen too many killing (hunting) fields where dozens and dozens of deer/turkey & small game carcasses have been left to rot by thrill killers who masquerade as ethical hunters or similar game shot & left by the side of the road from spotlighting pickups driving by at night. If you’re a hunter – a REAL hunter – you should be as appalled by these travesties. This is not sport. It’s inhumane, unconscionable, callous ignorance.

      1. I realize what I wrote above is long, convoluted and may very well not be read by most.
        So here it is, (maybe)short & (not so) sweet: The Congressionally-passed bill that will most likely shortly be signed by Trump is nothing more than a transparent desire to extend Alaska’s statewide inhumane/cruel/or unethical methods, which they euphemistically call “predator control”…to extend these methods into Federally Funded National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska. They claim that being unable to utilize these methods severely inhibits natives from acquiring needed subsistence. This is bull.
        Natives (and from what I gather ONLY natives) have been and would have continued to be able to hunt there for SUBSISTENCE as long as they followed certain ethical and humane principles set down in the previous resolution.

        Rep. Young (who proposed the bill and from what I’ve researched is very much despised by many Alaskan constituents and who praises himself for having shot wolves & pups in their dens, btw) cloaks this as a state’s rights issue. As in: The Fed has no right to limit our practices. Hey, even though it’s unethical & cruel, the Fed isn’t telling them not to continue their inhumanity on other Alaskan hunting grounds. Just not in Federally Funded Wildlife Refuges. It’s called a WILDLIFE REFUGE because that’s where wildlife is supposed to be able to SEEK FREAKING REFUGE & where Alaska gets over $2billion in tourist bucks each year. More annual revenues than from visiting hunters. Note: “Visiting”. Even those that rent helicopters.
        Generally, Natives only kill what they need for food, clothing or to sell for a living. But now they’ll have to compete w/$$$trophy hunters. Remember when Palin offered bounties for helicopter wolf kills to anyone who’d cut off & produce one of its forelegs?
        Isn’t there a melting ice floe somewhere up there she could drift away on?

        It’s really about whether predator control should occur in national wildlife refuges. Personally, I believe the prohibited hunting methods are nothing more than thinly veiled predator control, which should not be allowed on land managed in the national interest.

    12. I believe the gormless, brain-dead Sarah Palin lives in Alaska and she indulges in killing wolves and bears from her own plane so she probably supports this so-called form of “management”. She hates the environment so any wild creature is fair game to this moronic woman. She’s a joke, she can’t even speak properly. Killing bears and wolves from planes is the most disgusting and barbaric form of slaughter – why? To see a beautiful animal’s life snuffed out because people have the !right! to do it is outrageous. There are even wildlife contests where coyotes and other creatures are killed and the participants win prizes for the biggest animal they slaughter. What planet are you people on? It’s 2017 and yet you people are still locked in the Dark Ages. If you want a war go to Syria or Iraq with your guns but then it’s easier to kill an animal as they can’t shoot back. Trophy hunters are sick psychos, they put the heads of the animals they killed on the walls of their homes. How revolting !!! I hope Mother Nature wreaks revenge on you all !!!

      1. @SH, I believe the gormless, brain dead Sharon Hopkins lives in England and has no standing to complain in the affairs of Americans. She hates her environment (England), and human beings. SH is a joke and can not even speak English properly. Bla bla bla! Oh, yeah I been to Iraq, and if hunting offends your delicate sensibilities you should see close support air ops!

        1. So, Wild Bill Hickok has been to Iraq. Pity he didn’t stay there. I happen to love my country, it’s just that I have to live on the same planet as people like WB. It seems us with “delicate sensibilities” can never get through to the WBs and his ilk as his sort are on another planet. Why can’t you cherish and enjoy wildlife instead of wanting to destroy it? People like WB are ignorant cowards who think that by eliminating another species is fun and macho with their big guns and other forms of extermination. These people are inadequates which is why they resort to taking their frustrations out on sentient beings. There are no words to describe the WBs of this world, they are despised by people who love nature and want to protect it. If I had my way I would stick all these hunters, shooters, poisoners, trappers into rockets and send them all into orbit, ensuring there’s insufficient fuel for a return journey. Trouble is, there aren’t enough rockets.

          1. @Sharon H, Wild Bill Hickok was never in Iraq. The typical Englishman is so poor and so used to being ruled over that all they can do is talk or write. Some don’t even do that well (inadequate is an adjective or an adverb not a noun).
            Here at the ranch we have set aside an untouched seventeen acre corridor for the deer and other wildlife to get down to the river unmolested, except by other wildlife. We have eleven rescue dogs, 12 rescue horses, and donate to twenty-seven animal charities. What has Sharon done for wild life, ever?
            It has been a long time since anyone questioned my personal courage. And finally, You don’t have to live on the same planet as I do. I encourage you to seek other alternatives, and get your British nose out of American business.

            1. Whoa, WB, I was commenting on Sharron B., not you. I too have a problem with the holier than thou lefties. It is amazing that SB, if she does live in GB, would have so much to say about a subject she obviously knows little if anything about. particularly in a country where only the a select few can hunt.

          2. Yes you would eradicate anyone who disagrees with you or does something that you don’t approve of. Fortunately there are more of us who LOVE our CONSTITUTION and the FREEDOM it provides that we out number you trolls. If you don’t like America and Americans then maybe you should hop on a rocket and move to Mars. You are one of the reasons that I am not totally opposed to abortion, it’s just to bad you mommy didn’t believe in it.

            1. @ray, Actually ray, I spent my entire life defending my fellow Americans and our Constitution. I would not eradicate any of them. Although, I do object to an English person trying to impose their all knowing will upon Americans. Just like our forefathers.

          3. Actually, hunters love nature and DO protect it, much more than naive little twits like you who know nothing about how nature actually works. We cherish and enjoy wildlife and ensure that species are not eliminated, and prevent starvation and disease through our practices of managed harvest. We are often highly amused by the ineffectual rantings of ignorant twitty girls like you, though, knowing how much turmoil and frustration imagined offenses are generating for you in attempting to interfere with our healthy practices.

            Too bad England is such an overpopulated socialist State. Otherwise more of you would get a chance at a natural education.

            1. Brian, do you know what a little POS fascist you sound like? Step inside an echo chamber if you don’t know yet. I’m all for hunting but can’t stand the self-righteous chest pounding fascists that have to belittle people having any opinion alternative to your’s. Grow-up if there’s time.

    13. Can anyone explain to me why is it so thrilling to snuff out the life of a sentient creature that has never impinged on anyone. Wild animals are trying to survive and yet people enjoy killing bears, wolves and other animals from planes, they trap and poison them and other vile methods under the guise of “management”. The human race is increasing at an alarming rate stealing habitats from animals that have lived in the wild for centuries. It’s the human race that needs to be managed and controlled as we are the pest species. People who enjoy murdering a hibernating bear and its cubs and wolves and coyotes with their cubs are the lowest of the low. These people obviously don’t have the intelligence to indulge in cerebral interests like reading or taking up a hobby that doesn’t involve the slaughter of wildlife for fun. Why are you people declaring war on wildlife? My only hope is that what comes around goes around and that when all you hunters, shooters, trappers, poisoners etc. are on your deathbeds that the spirits of all these wonderful and majestic creatures you stole the life from, will haunt you into perpetuity and I also hope that what goes around comes around. Shame on the lot of you with your weapons of mass destruction.

    Leave a Comment 226 Comments

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *