I commented earlier about my…

I commented earlier about my objections to the proposed expansion of the penned wildlife program which is backward and inhumane. Then I started thinking. Where did this proposal originate? Who drafted it? Why did such a extreme proposal not go through any apparent ethics review? Were there any cautions or objections expressed along the way? By whom? How did such a proposal get traction when the overwhelming majority of Canadians disapprove of blood sports? How does this proposal serve the public good?

I think I have some idea how this terrible idea arose and flourished. I suspect that the penned wildlife proposal came from Ministry operatives who hunt themselves and want to expand opportunities for other hunters and their dogs. It is simply self-serving, and not reflective of any concern about animal welfare or public opinion. I think that many hunters realize that they are increasingly disrespected and looked down upon. They fear that rational and compassionate people and groups will try to limit them and their abuse of wildlife - which, in my mind, is exactly what should happen. Not only should new "training" areas be rejected, existing "training" areas should be removed. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Fisheries is out of step with the public will and needs to refocus on protection of wildlife. It does Ontario and Canada a disservice by promoting cruelty and serving themselves. It is past time for a change in leadership and portfolios.