Thursday, March 01, 2012

California Fish & Game Commissioner Dan Richards

[Note the sh-t eating grin]

The cat had been driven into a tree by a pack of dogs.  That ensured that it couldn't get away, couldn't defend itself, couldn't even present a moving target.  California Fish & Game commissioner Dan Richards then walked up to the tree, took aim, and shot it dead.  

Richards presumably considers himself a sportsman.  Shooting a trapped, defenseless animal at close range with a rifle is not  what I consider sportsmanship.  One can assume that the commissioner will go on to further acts of sportsmanship like shooting his neighbor's dog, shooting ranch cattle, or shooting fish in a barrel.

The president of the Fish & Game Commission seems not to take seriously the commission's mission, which is to preserve and protect fish and game.   That 11 Republicans in the Assembly have spoken in his defense does not suggest that Richards should stay, but that the 11 Republicans should go also, and for the same reasons.

Email your assemblyman today demanding Richards' removal.



  1. Anonymous4:22 AM

    DO YOU EAT MEAT?????????

  2. Patches10:42 AM

    She's a fine cat, she's no person though, she'll make goot meat and fur. Ah, sure its only game Jack, easy there.

  3. @Anonymous That is a juvenile and evasive answer. The meat I eat is from cattle which are grown for the purpose. Ranchers produce them specifically for the purpose. They exist to be eaten.

    Wild animals are not man-made. They are there on their own and do not deserve to have some juvenile moron shoot them just to get his perverted jollies by killing a defenseless animal.

    In an actual sport both sides have the same equipment - both sides have football pads and helmets, or both players have tennis racquets. I will say to Anonymous to his face that he is a pussy and a coward if he hunts with a gun or even a bow. Native Americans hunted with stone tools they made themselves by hand. Does Anonymous have the manliness and balls to hunt the same way? Or is he just a loudmouth who could't actually bag anything at all if he had to do it the way the Native Americans did?

  4. Damien4:12 PM

    But Israel kill peace activists with tanks so why the moral high ground when a human kills an animal with a bow. The double standards are humorous to say the least.

    1. Peace activists? Really? Peace activists shooting thousands of rockets toward schools, homes, hospitals? Peace activists with explosive belts in crowded markets? Peace activists who refuse to negotiate peace because they demand a one-state solution? Peace activists in mobs shouting "Death to the Jews!"?

      Damien, are you just being an adolescent troll, or are you really that stupid?

    2. Damien12:08 PM

      Jack, Rachel Corrie??????????

  5. Rachel Corrie a peace activist? Not hardly. She was there as part of a Hamas-aligned ANSWER group that was there to provoke Israeli responses. ANSWER is just as much a peace organization as their friends in Hamas, which is to say not at all.

    She was so arrogant and stupid that she thought there was something about her being an American and a self-righteous moron that would protect her if she got in the way of a bulldozer lowering its blade. Since she couldn't see the driver, she should have known the driver couldn't see her either.

    I have worked around bulldozers and I can assure you that if you want to come home alive, you stay well away from the blade and the tracks. She didn't. She died not because she was a hate-filled woman incapable of actual political thought, but because she was an idiot who ignored the obvious. She thought walking in front of a moving bulldozer was a political statement. It wasn't - it was suicide by stupidity.

    As an aside, I will mention that by driving the tracks in opposite directions, unlike a wheeled vehicle, a bulldozer can pivot in place. Which means that even a monster like a D-7 can turn on a dime. The moral of which is that even being alongside a bulldozer is an exceedingly poor idea.

    In Corrie's defense, I have seen other Americans do exactly the same thing in other contexts as well. We think that being Americans makes us somehow physically invulnerable.

    I was on a solidarity visit to Israel in 2000 and they took us to Gilo, the southernmost neighborhood of Jerusalem. It abutss directly on Bethlehem, a Palestinian town, across a small canyon. Palestinians snipers (or as people like Damien would say, "peace activists") had been shooting at Jewish apartment houses facing Bethlehem from the ancient Church of Saint Nicholas, mainly at night to make return fire difficult. They were hoping to provoke an Israeli reprisal so they could claim that the Jews had attacked the church. The apartments on the Bethlehem side of the buildings all had sandbags in front of the windows to protect them from the "peace activists'" Kalashnikovs.

    The Jerusalem city government was in the process of building a concrete barrier to at least protect cars and pedestrians on the street. Just as they call snipers shooting at apartment houses "peace activists", so too do the Damiens of the world call such barriers "apartheid walls" and "land grabs".

    Several in our group, no smarter than Rachel Corrie, walked around on top of the incomplete anti-sniper barrier on the theory apparently that the snipers shot only at night and that, as Americans, we wouldn't be harmed. I even did it for a moment until I realized the madness of it and jumped down.