Why arent Animal Rights ever an issue in presidential politics?

[Eleanors38]

84. I hope my comments will be seen as useful. The short answer:

The old, strong coalition that expanded national (and state) parks, memorial lands, refuges, and allowed public access for recreation has been largely broken. To the average hunter and fisher, "animal rights" is synonymous with urban-centric Beltway lobbying groups working to outlaw hunting. (Please note another thread about the "Humane Society" activities. If this is HS of the US -- HSUS -- it is the wealthiest and most virulently anti-hunting organization in he U.S. And they are not the only ones. Yet the bulk of funding to acquire land, restore ecosystems, enforce game laws, research animals and their habitats, comes from -- yep -- hunters and fishers. In addition to these folk's payment of general taxes, they pay:

1). Additional taxes on arms, ammunition, tackle, motorboat fuels
2). Additional fees for state licenses
3). Additional permit fees to pay for "walk-in" hunting
4). Additional fees in most states to maintain wildlife management areas which benefit ALL species.

And they have been doing this since FDR instituted many of the above taxes. Further, most management areas, parks and refuges are open to other citizens for use without the payment of special fees (I hunt a management area 50 miles from Austin for $48/yr. Yet fishers, mountain bikers, bird watchers, boaters, etc. can use the area for no charge, other than the state sales tax).

Now, hunters and fishers must face the ingrained corporatism of the GOPer's "sagebrush rebellion" (including the likes of Bundy-types) which seeks to liquidate federal lands directly, or transfer them to state control where Republican-weakened and cash-strapped governments will sell those lands off to private corporations who will do what they want, hunters and animal lovers both be damned. In recent months, the major "hook & bullet" press, including Field & Stream, Outdoor Life, Petersen's Hunting, even the staid Grays Sporting Journal, have raised the flag of alarm against this seismic corporate shift, trying to reignite a more unified movement favoring PUBLIC LANDS. But a lot of sports people don't see much cooperation from the urban-centric animal rightists; in fact, I must ask animal rights folk, in the refrain of the old union song, "which side are you on, boys, which side are you on?"

Will animal rights groups join outdoors people to defend and expand public lands? Or will they look the other way as hunting retreats back to the European royalist model of estates where hunting is an aside to sumptuous meals and quiet screwing? After all, the main interest of too many animal rights groups is to further restrict if not eliminate hunting by whatever means, and to resume the mediagenic exposes of chicken factories.

Can you work with the likes of commercial salmon fishers, back country hunters, and yes, Safari Club International to stop huge mining interests from despoiling much of Alaska's wilderness? These people did that this year, you know.