Why does NC law place a higher emphasis on a hunter instead of a landowner? Currently, under NC law, a hunter may go on any property that is not posted. Who does the law protect more, hunters or landowners?
Myth of Hunting - Hunters need to stick together because there is strength in numbers, Not! (Article #9 Page 1) | |
Not hardly. Let's explain it this way. A very small percentage of our population actually purchases a hunting license. The number of anti-hunters that are as dedicated to ending the act of hunting is roughly the same percentage of our population as those that hunt. Each group, hunters and anti-hunters, comprise maybe 3-5% of our population. This is a rough estimate but is close to accurate for this example. Let's be very liberal with our estimation and say that 10% of our population belongs to each one of these groups and those two groups together make up 20% of the population (again, a very liberal estimate). This leaves 80% of our population that is neither for or against hunting. Quite frankly, this 80% group doesn't care one way or the other as they are not exposed to it. It is this group of people that hold and control the balance of power in the hunting versus anti-hunting debate. It is this group of people that should be considered and "positively influenced" for the future of hunting, that is, if hunting is to continue. Any instance of hunter behavior that portrays hunting in a negative light will have an adverse affect on the perception of hunting within this group. It is possible that hunting will continue to exist as long as 51% our population support it. A good question to ask is this: Which side of the hunting vs. anti-hunting debate will get the 51% first? Currently the hunting vs. anti-hunting support level are running in a close race. Is there a method of hunting (Still vs. Dog) that produces an overwhelming majority of all total complaints against hunting every year? The answer is yes, there is. It is much harder to be an anti-hunting advocate when you only perceive hunting as Still Hunting and not Dog Hunting. This is because Still Hunting produces so few complaints. Whereas, Dog Hunting produces many, many more complaints. The percentage of our population that is anti-hunting on moral grounds is much smaller compared to those who are anti-hunting because they are inconvenienced by hunting. This is because irresponsible hunting disturbs their life. For the purpose of describing hunting, it is time to differentiate the types of hunting and to stop classifying each as Sport Hunters. One method is sport hunting and the other is meat hunting. Let the land manager designate which method is best for his land and manage it accordingly as these two types of hunting do not mix together. In the state of North Carolina, especially the eastern part, the dog hunters are causing harm to the sport of hunting. Personally speaking, I see no sport at all in dog hunting. It is meat hunting only and it can be easily proven. Sport hunting is the act of growing and harvesting a mature deer and this benefits the whole herd. When was the last time that anyone saw a dog hunter pass up a shot on a deer because it was not a mature animal? They don't because only by shooting and killing the animal being chased can they get the dogs back. This is not sport. The state of North Carolina is refusing to separate the two types of hunting and until they do so, still hunting will always take a back seat to the dog hunters. Members of the North Carolina Legislature and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources commission, I ask you to wake up. Our state is not rural enough to support dog hunting in the traditional manner. Our population has increased in the last 50 years to the point that there are not many rural areas left. Hunting should be separated between responsible and irresponsible hunting. Otherwise, will dog hunting discredit the "sport" of hunting to the point that the public rebels against all hunting and bans it altogether? "Still" hunters would rather envision Responsible Hunting before hunting is banned. "Dog" hunters would rather hunt in the traditional manner even if it means continuing to produce negative public opinion. This is a very selfish attitude and puts themselves ahead of others. Do our current laws promote or instill Responsible Hunting? - No. Is hunting a right or a privilege? - The hunter education manual of NC says that it is a privilege. But NC law leads one to think it is a right. Why does NC law place a higher emphasis on a hunter instead of a landowner? Currently, under NC law, a hunter may go on any property that is not posted. Who does the law protect more, hunters or landowners? Too often a sport hunter considers an "anti-hunter" as someone who is morally against killing an animal. The act that will greatly reduce the amount of sport hunting will not be based on ethical questioning. Hunting will be reduced by changes in the political climate regarding laws that have not been addressed or even looked at in many years. As our state becomes more urbanized, more and more landowners will get tired of continuously putting up posted signs only to have them removed by hunters that consider hunting as a "right". The landowners will eventually start asking, "why do I have to tolerate this?". Then at some point, somebody will ask their elected officials, "why does NC law protect a hunter's privilege more than a landowner's rights?" Addressing the question of landowner's rights versus hunter's privilege has the potential to reduce hunting far more than anything else. Hunters sticking together to fend off attacks on their sport based on moral grounds is useless. http://ncwildlife.info/Knowledge_Base/op=show/kid=9.html | |
| Author | Admin |
Lawton McKenzie, 28, of Old Black Creek Road, was arrested Tuesday on three misdemeanor counts of animal cruelty after authorities who went to his home found dismembered animals, a machete, knives, bowls of blood and what appeared to be a puppy’s head in a plastic bag.
The investigation is ongoing, and more charges are possible, the Wayne County Sheriff's Office said. Authorities declined to release his exact address.
Animal control officers found the remains of several dozen animals on Dec. 3, Justin Scally, director of the Wayne County Department of Animal Control Services.
"There were multiple animals that had been decapitated," he said. "I don't think you're ever really prepared to see situations like this."
Other animals were being burned on what Scally described as "a homemade grill of sorts."
Investigators also found the remains of a decapitated dog with its front paws cut off, dead snakes, a dead turtle, dead puppies and what appeared to be a goat’s head on the grill.
Other items were unidentifiable. Investigators also found the remains of several predatory birds, such as owls, on the property.
An accurate count of how many deceased animals will never be available, Scally said, because of the number of unmatchable dismembered parts found on the property.
Investigators removed 26 living animals from the house, including a dying goat, Scally said. It was rushed to a local veterinarian's office and survived.
“It was the most horrific, disturbing case that I have ever investigated," he said. “What we saw, I don’t think I will ever forget for the rest of my life."
Neighbors said Tuesday they had complained to animal control in the past about animal carcasses in the yard and about pit bulls getting loose from McKenzie's residence and killing other animals in the neighborhood, including a pony and two cats.
Scally said he had questioned McKenzie before and that he denied killing the animals, that they were road kill and that he was studying taxidermy and using the animals' bones to make necklaces.
Investigators were only able to charge McKenzie last week when they determined they had enough evidence.
Scally said the animals are improving and should all have no problems if adopted. While he said the scene at McKenzie's home disgusted his investigators, workers have been concentrating on the surviving animals.
"Our goal is providing the best care that we can for these animals," he said, "and to prosecute (McKenzie) ... to the greatest potential."
The County of Wayne has filed a civil complaint against McKenzie requiring he pay for the upkeep of the seized animals. The county also requested McKenzie post sufficient funds with the Clerk of Superior Court to insure the care of the animals for an additional 30 days.
McKenzie is scheduled to appear in court on the civil charge on Jan. 15.
