Animal Rights Groups Continue Lawsuits To End Trapping/Hunting In Maine
April 20, 2009
In Maine the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine, are back in court trying to stop all trapping in areas designated as Canada lynx habitat. This has been an ongoing debate and continued lawsuits that have yet to reach any resolve.
Trapping Today covers most of the first day of court action when the two plaintiffs brought to the witness stand Dr. Paul Paquet, a self-proclaimed authority on just about anything. The Bangor News also has some coverage.
Paquet is noted for controversy in wildlife issues. In November of 2005, wolves stocked and killed Kenton Joel Carnegie at a mining camp named Points North Landing in northern Saskatchewan, Canada. After a thorough investigation, it was determined that his death was the result of wolves. There were many witnesses who were at the scene presenting testimony, etc.
Just when the family of Carnegie thought they had reached closure in the case, Dr. Paquet was a member of a group seeking to reopen the case claiming bears killed Carnegie not wolves. Even though there were witnesses and the family of Kenton sought 4 independent scientists to study the evidence, all of whom agreed with the findings, Paquet insisted by looking at photographs, it was bears.
In short, Paquet has a history of bucking science in favor of his own ideas and theories and as in the Carnegie case, according to Dr. Valerius Geist, one of the scientists who reviewed the case, Paquet claimed he had superior knowledge of wolves and therefore he should be believed over the countless others.
As witnesses in the Maine lynx case continue to answer questions and venture into areas of presented evidence that seems bizarre at best, time has expired and the case will be continued at a later date. I’m still trying to get clarification from those who attended the hearing but it appears as though the plaintiffs are actually trying to submit as evidence information they have found on Internet message boards. I’m also trying to determine if that can be legally done but the bottom line here is that if the Animal Welfare Institute and the Wildlife Alliance of Maine have to rely on Internet message boards’ “hearsay” to prop up their case, what kind of case do they have?
Say what you will though. Whether I or anyone else thinks the case shouldn’t result in halting trapping, this is a case that deals with the Endangered Species Act and those cases have virtually zero victories for the hunters and trappers. As absurd as some lawsuits are, nearly every one comes down on the side of the animal rights groups as judges refuse to use common sense and rule according to precedence and their own interpretation of the ESA.
Stay tuned for further updates.
Tom Remington
Related Articles
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
We feature the latest news, events and politics effecting the sports of hunting, fishing, and all outdoor activities in North America.
[...] See the rest here: Animal Rights Groups Continue Lawsuits To End Trapping/Hunting In … [...]
i feel as if we let them stop trapping in maine where will it stop they want both ends and the middle the animals will over populate and then we will have alot of new problemsand then where will we be . we wont be able to manage any of the herds andthen they will take alll the natural resources and then we will lose most of the animals in the entire state. what are they thinking of them selves or are they thinking about the rest of us.i want all animals to be here in maine but we nhave to have control of the numbers so we dont have more problems please ask all hunters and trappers for there own thoughts then proceed with things after you know all the facts. we may be able to come up with some understanding on this subject. thank you for hearing my thoughts i hope it makes a difference.
Animal liberation, is the idea that the most basic interests of animals should be afforded the same consideration as the similar interests of humans.Advocates approach the issue from different philosophical positions but agree that animals should be viewed as legal persons and members of the moral community, not property, and that they should not be used as food, clothing, research subjects, or entertainment.
How then, do you suppose we will eat? I hate tomatoes.
[...] from both side of the case. One such expert testimony for the AWI came from Dr. Paul Paquet, a controversial figure in wildlife related [...]