Republicans to wreck protection for bears and wolves

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2017/03/Alaska-bear-wolf-hunting-032117.html?referrer=https://www.facebook.com/

So now the Republicans are legislating to permit foul hunting practices in the wildlife parks created for the protection of America's distinctive wildlife. Crass and depressing. The inability to appreciate your own natural history makes you as barbarian as ISIS.

This legislation blocks the administration from ever issuing a similar rule on this topic, leaving the authority to prohibit these egregious trophy hunting methods solely in the hands of Congress.

Originally posted by finnegan
...as barbarian as ISIS.

Hyperbolic much?

Originally posted by finnegan
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2017/03/Alaska-bear-wolf-hunting-032117.html?referrer=https://www.facebook.com/

So now the Republicans are legislating to permit foul hunting practices in the wildlife parks created for the protection of America's distinctive wildlife. Crass and depressing. The inability to appreciate your own natural hi ...[text shortened]... rity to prohibit these egregious trophy hunting methods solely in the hands of Congress.[/quote]

While I've got no liking for the hunting of animals which aren't going to be eaten (and no one eats wolf) unless indicated by the necessity for a cull, I don't see that having the right to prohibit it lie solely in the hands of Congress as necessarily wrong. Does the Act rule State legislatures incompetent to issue a ban?

Originally posted by DeepThought
While I've got no liking for the hunting of animals which aren't going to be eaten (and no one eats wolf) unless indicated by the necessity for a cull, I don't see that having the right to prohibit it lie solely in the hands of Congress as necessarily wrong. Does the Act rule State legislatures incompetent to issue a ban?

State legislatures would not have jurisdiction to govern national parks.

Originally posted by Sleepyguy
Hyperbolic much?

I have in mind their disdain for their cultural heritage.

Originally posted by DeepThought
While I've got no liking for the hunting of animals which aren't going to be eaten (and no one eats wolf) unless indicated by the necessity for a cull, I don't see that having the right to prohibit it lie solely in the hands of Congress as necessarily wrong. Does the Act rule State legislatures incompetent to issue a ban?

So you suggest that politicians in Congress should take over the administration of wildlife from the experts who administer the national parks. That fits with the US hatred of experts of course. In the event that indiscriminate hunting imperils the survival of these animals, how flexibly do you think the system will be able to respond?

Originally posted by DeepThought
While I've got no liking for the hunting of animals which aren't going to be eaten (and no one eats wolf) unless indicated by the necessity for a cull, I don't see that having the right to prohibit it lie solely in the hands of Congress as necessarily wrong. Does the Act rule State legislatures incompetent to issue a ban?

You can't look at things so narrowly. Step back and see the bigger picture. Putting such as decision in the hands of a Republican-controlled congress, during a Republican presidential administration, means conservatives won't have to worry about nature-loving hippies ruining their fun at the state-level. Basically, it's one less hurdle gun-toting conservatives have to be concerned with in an effort to use their toys to kill as many of any animal they want for sport.

Republicans have not only slashed the EPA's budget, slashed the EPA's staff and put a gag-order on them to keep from sharing information with the public, but put as it's head someone who doesn't believe in climate change.

They've also reversed Obama-era legislation that prevented the dumping of coal into rivers. Trump also signed an executive order to advance the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, something blocked by Obama over environmental concerns such as contaminated drinking water.

With this new law blocking interference from state law-makers, Republicans are on a mission to remove any environmental legislation that could hinder corporate or conservative interests. Conservatives like their guns, and they love being corporate tools.

Originally posted by sh76
State legislatures would not have jurisdiction to govern national parks.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the states would still be able to legislate hunting and laws governing wildlife, right? If a state were to ban the hunting of a particular animal, does that mean the law has no jurisdiction in a national park?

Originally posted by vivify
You can't look at things so narrowly. Step back and see the bigger picture. Putting such as decision in the hands of a Republican-controlled congress, during a Republican presidential administration, means conservatives won't have to worry about nature-loving hippies ruining their fun at the state-level. Basically, it's one less hurdle gun-toting conservat ...[text shortened]... concerned with in an effort to use their toys to kill as many of any animal they want for sport.

I read the OP as meaning that the Federal administration cannot produce executive orders to prohibit hunting. Given that current administration is Trump and friends I can't see that at a national level it makes much difference during this Presidency. The effect is to prevent future administrations from using executive orders to ban hunting of particular animals. I'm still wondering about the powers of State legislatures and governors as a State law would still be in force in a National Park in that State.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I read the OP as meaning that the Federal administration cannot produce executive orders to prohibit hunting. Given that current administration is Trump and friends I can't see that at a national level it makes much difference during this Presidency. The effect is to prevent future administrations from using executive orders to ban hunting of particula ...[text shortened]... islatures and governors as a State law would still be in force in a National Park in that State.

Of course if the US actually followed the Constitution there would be no Federal Park Lands since the Federal government is only allowed Washington DC, military bases, docks, munitions depots and post offices.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I read the OP as meaning that the Federal administration cannot produce executive orders to prohibit hunting.

"leaving the authority to prohibit these egregious trophy hunting methods solely in the hands of Congress."

Unless I'm wrong, this appears to mean that this decision is left up to Congress.

Originally posted by sh76
State legislatures would not have jurisdiction to govern national parks.

Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government has the right to create Parks and own State lands?

Originally posted by Eladar
Where in the Constitution does it say the Federal Government has the right to create Parks and own State lands?

This page has a helpful answer to that question:

https://www.nps.gov/training/essentials/html/law_policy_topic.html

Originally posted by DeepThought
I read the OP as meaning that the Federal administration cannot produce executive orders to prohibit hunting. Given that current administration is Trump and friends I can't see that at a national level it makes much difference during this Presidency. The effect is to prevent future administrations from using executive orders to ban hunting of particula ...[text shortened]... islatures and governors as a State law would still be in force in a National Park in that State.

I would need someone who knows to clarify but the way I interpret this, the people working for the National Parks are employed by the Federal Government, so their decisions are in theory decisions of the administration, but in practice usually delegated to professionals. So the people who manage the parks are being prevented from making professional decisions.