For decades hunters have posed for pictures with their kill -- proof of the culmination of a successful hunt.
California Fish and Game Commission president Dan Richards' trophy shot shows him happily hugging the lifeless carcass of a magnificent mountain lion, treed by dogs and shot by Richards during an expedition on an Idaho hunting ranch.
“I’m glad it’s legal in Idaho," Richards was quoted as saying when asked about the moratorium banning the hunting of big cats in California. But the echoes of his Idaho killshot are not dying away, and instead are rippling throughout his home state as public officials and citizens alike demand his ouster.
Supporters say Richards' position with the California Fish and Game Commission (not to be confused with the state Department of Fish and Game) has no bearing on his private desire to trek into Idaho back country with professional guides and stalk, tree and shoot a mountain lion.
Others, including Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom and a growing number of state officials, maintain that Richards' actions "do not reflect the values of the people of California" and are calling on him to resign.
A description of the commission's responsibilities on its website included this description of their role: "The Commissioners' ultimate decisions must reflect not only the biological needs of our fish and wildlife, but also the wishes, needs and desires of all those who enjoy these resources. This is not an easy course to follow, and frequently it leads to conflicts between various interest groups. However, with the interest, understanding and involvement of everyone who appreciates our magnificent fish and wildlife resources, the California Fish and Game Commission will continue along the path of sound and enlightened resource management."
We'll leave it to you. What do you think?
Read the bio's of F&G Commissioners here: http://www.fgc.ca.gov/public/information/bios.aspx#richards and consider their collective contributions to the state, then reflect upon what you have done, then chime in if Mr. Richards should be removed from his post. Perhaps you would be willing to take such a publicly scrutinized and time-consuming position for $500/month. Granted, he may be the least impressive of the bunch, but not exactly a hooligan. I stand firmly with him in his right to hunt legally, while not impressed with his allowing the photo to become public. The good news for all of you haters is that his term will likely not be renewed in 2013... Hopefully, the diversity of the commission will be considered when appointing his replacement.
Was the development and human population growth on this continent (at steep steep cost to ALL indigenous species) for last 300 years OK, but we somehow need to stop now? How does that make sense? If the "correct" approach was ALWAYS to NOT disturb animal habitat to benefit humans, then shouldn't we correct/reverse the prior wrongs? Why are (plentiful and not endangered) Cougars special? Is it ok to kill deer? bears? wild boar? cows? chickens? moles? rats? mosquitos? trees? I am curious to hear a consistent and cogent framework for deciding.
Lastly, if anyone against hunting and conservation has ever had a chunk of meat, you should be ashamed of yourself. As a dear "vegan" friend of mine said, "I get it. I'd rather see animals live better open-range lives for a few years and be taken, then see beak-less chickens or see cows laying in their own manure being executed via hammer or guillotine."
Newsom -- who last week admitted his government position was kinda pointless -- made use of his time and penned a letter to Richards today, telling him that he clearly cannot serve as the president of Fish and Game Commission while being such an avid hunter of mountain lions -- anywhere. He also said: "As you may know, my father Judge William Newsom is a long-time mountain lion advocate and past president of the Mountain Lion Preservation Foundation. Additionally, I have personally worked for the protection of these majestic animals and their habitat." Not to add oil to the fire... Gavin needs to make better use of his time. Perhaps deal w real problems?
Are some animals more important -- and thus worthy of more government protection -- because they are more wild or noble or revered or snuggly or anthropomorphic or whatever? Based on our current laws, one would assume that our societal answer to this is "yes, to an extent." Like it or not, there is a gradient of worth that we assign to the animal kingdom -- sometimes based on perceptions in popular culture and other times strictly defined by the laws we've created. It's why dog fighting is perceived as a worse crime than chicken fighting, and why we frown on eating horse and dog but not pigs and sheep. Richards is very good at pushing people's buttons. The photo of him with the dead lion is absurdist performance art. It's incredibly provocative. He's forced regular people who don't ever think about this stuff to start thinking about this stuff. That photo should be blown up and hung at SF MOMA.
Maybe's he's using this opportunity to demonstrate just how impotent his office really is. Sometimes the only way to save something is to destroy it.
You say that like some 20yo Cal Student just back from an OWS meeting.
So far so good here. Let's not resort to cyber-dueling pistols at 30 paces, please... and keep on topic. Carry on,
A packed house gathered at today's California Fish and Game Commission meeting at Mission Inn in Riverside. The meeting is the first since the fallout surrounding the killing of a mountain lion by Daniel Richards, president of the California Fish and Game Commission. The majority of the attendees were in support of Dan and he remains with CFG Commission. Sanity prevails.
One salivates and secretly wishes he'd met these creatures under different circumstances. The other admires the beauty of their form and function and the complex diversity they represent. They both stop by a Safeway on the way home, in order to feed the family. Which represents the future destination of human sensitivities and which represent a desperate grip on the ancient past? In the animistic world view, found in hunter-gatherer cultures, the human being is often regarded as on a roughly equal footing with other animals, plants, and natural forces. Therefore, it is morally imperative to treat these agents with respect. In this world view, humans are considered a part of nature, rather than superior to, or separate from it. On the other hand, the superior human hunts for ego gratification and spreads death indiscriminately through the forest, sometimes with dogs or helicopters. As a separate entity, he sees the world as limitless, to do with as he pleases. And then there's the guy that smugly asserts his right to do any damn thing he pleases in the name of freedom and righteousness. We all know where that leads. In all their mushy little minds, they really know it is all teetering on a precarious balance in an environment so delicate that one sun storm could kill us all.
-California resident, and Park Management student (with hopes of being a park ranger)
Enter man and his meaningless, egocentric murder of defenseless creatures in the name of 'sport' and you cross so many lines of decency and integrity that the position is beyond explanation and justification. This guy clearly lacks even a modicum of respect for the animals he pretends to manage. And to hunt them down using dogs just adds another layer of ineptitude to the equation. He is an embarrassment and an shameless idiot. I say throw him out there in mountain lion territory, perhaps with a bow and arrow to offset the animal stealth, agility, strength and cunning and a knife to equate with the lion's teeth and claws and let them coexist for a season. I have no doubt who would survive.
3rd one was Mount Tam mid week during a rain storm. All examples as to why I don't hike, run etc with ear buds in my ears. Like most idiots I see on trails today.
Most authentic hunters would see this behavior as sacrilegious. I am not a hunter. If it was how food was obtained instead of the proliferation of supermarkets, I would hunt rather than starve. This jerk brings to mind these rich, fat guys that pay big dollars to "hunt" fenced, stocked reserves where George Shearing, Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could bag their limits by blasting away in the dark. It is an insult to all wild things and the considerate people that hunt for game management (And actually eat what they track down and outwit), or the removal of rogue animals from populated areas. You know exactly what I mean CN and are just doing your "high road" routine. It is mostly entertaining, but on this issue I see it as foolish and inappropriate.