New House Bill Potential Ban on Wolf and Lion Hunting??

[Deleted member 28227]

Pardon for the inflammatory title, just saw this bill currently going through the house. The intent of the bill is to ban the killing and consumption of domesticated dogs and cats, but the wording does not specifically mention allowing hunting of lions, wolves, coyotes, etc. This seems like a rather innocuous bill that if passed could be used to take various states to court for there predator seasons.

Maybe an overreaction... but this text had me concerned "To prohibit the slaughter of dogs and cats for human consumption, and for other purposes."

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6720/text

 

[Straight Arrow]

Maybe an overreaction...

Don't we have enough to worry about that is clearly worded?

'Wonder who the proud congress-person is who needs to get a clue about real issues facing this nation! What a waste of legislative time and effort.

 

[Gr8bawana]

I thinks it's quite a reach to read this as a potential ban on wolf and mtn. lion hunting.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

In CO: "8. All edible parts of lions must be properly prepared for human consumption, excluding internal organs"

If this bill passes I could see PETA or the Humane Society arguing that, the CO mountain lion hunt is in violation of this federal law because you are pursuing a cat in order to slaughter and kill it for consumption. Never once does the bill use the word "Domestic". Their argument wouldn't hold up in court, but it seems like they could easily get a season cancelled.

Consider that they are going after delistings of Grizzlies and Wovles for APA violations...

 

[Ben Lamb]

They could sue, sure. but they'd lose. The bill's language says nothing about wildlife, so it doesn't apply. The legislative intent is clear that this is for domestic animals (or even feral dogs or cats). I don't think I'd lose too much sleep over this one, but totally get the concern.

 

[vanish]

I actually disagree with you Ben.

I'd say it would be clear if it included the words feral and domesticated in the bill, which it does not. The bill also says "for other purposes" in addition to the human consumption piece.

I don't think its a stretch to see someone arguing this applies to mountain lions. That's exactly how some judges roll, meaning of the words, NOT intent.

 

[Ben Lamb]

I actually disagree with you Ben.

I'd say it would be clear if it included the words feral and domesticated in the bill, which it does not. The bill also says "for other purposes" in addition to the human consumption piece.

I don't think its a stretch to see someone arguing this applies to mountain lions. That's exactly how some judges roll, meaning of the words, NOT intent.

I get that, but Legislative intent comes in to the judges decision, and the disclaimer at the end of the bill provides states with the ammo they need. Wildlife have their own legal classification and if they do not include that in this bill, then it does not apply. They would literally have to add wildlife. Cats and dogs are not wolves and lions. Separate genetic critters, separate legal classification and separate management prescriptions.

 

[Howie]

All good points, for sure. Alas, this will be used as a tool by anti's, and it will be the argued interpretation, at that time, that the decision will be made on.
I agree worth the spirit of this bill, but as written it should be shot down.