Obama Czar Would Ban Hunting

This may be the next contestant on "Obama Czars With Bizarre Beliefs":

Another of President Obama’s appointments is coming under fire. This time it is Professor Cass Sunstein, tapped by the Obama administration to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. On the surface he does not seem nearly as extreme in his views as Van Jones. The hearing held by the Senate Homeland Security and Government Oversight Committee revealed a pragmatic approach to regulation viewed as centrist in nature. What is not centrist about Professor Sunstein are his beliefs on hunting, animal rights, and agriculture.

Professor Sunstein has stated in the past that all hunting should be eliminated by regulation. This is extremely dangerous to hunters as this is one of the most powerful positions in the White House, controlling all kinds of regulations that will directly affect hunting. At a Harvard University conference, he said “We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.” Even though he seems to have left the door open to some hunting for sustenance in that statement, his other beliefs on animal rights preclude nearly all animal use. That is an extreme viewpoint not shared by most Americans.

On animal rights Professor Sunstein has stated that animals may have the right to sue in court. His position stops short of granting animals full citizenship and while he believes they still may be considered property, they should be granted the opportunity to sue with human representation in a court of law. In this far-fetched parallel reality, there would practically be an end to any animal use anywhere in the United States. A chicken suing a farmer for better living conditions is just as preposterous as an attorney representing a deer that a hunter has harvested. Those kind of questions addressing animal welfare are usually settled through regulation. Unfortunately for farmers, hunters, fisherman and anyone else who makes their living with animals, the regulatory direction Professor Sunstein will take us in is guaranteed to be onerous.

It is an exercise in mental gymnastics to debate the merit of an animal having the right to be represented in a court of law. If this became the law of the land, it opens a Pandora's box for attorneys to enter into litigation on the behalf of animals. It also begs the question; if an animal can sue a human for damages, can an animal sue a human entity such as a wildlife management agency for introducing a predator into an Eco-system formerly devoid of predators? Would an attorney be able to represent a herd of elk in the case of wolf re-introduction? This is just one example of why this is not currently allowed. It is curious that people with these beliefs stop at granting animals rights equal to humans but never enter into the debate as to which animals have more rights than others. While the elk in this example would not be directly suing the wolves, the rights of the wolves would have to be balanced against the rights of the elk. This can only come from the basic premise that animals and humans are somehow separate and independent of each other and do not co-exist. This is not the case. Humans and animals will continue to be in direct competition for habitat and food as long as we both live on this planet. While the animals may or may not benefit from increased litigation the attorneys certainly would. Professor Sunstein is a professor of law. I guess it is true that when you are a hammer the whole world looks like a nail.

There's lots more where Sunstein came from. Don't forget Science Czar John Holdren, the totalitarian loon.