We all have our favorite aphorisms, and this is one of mine: "will the ends, but deny the means."
I love that one, because a form of it is the cover — a dissemblance — used by canny AR extremists to achieve their radical goals.
So an AR extremist might say something like: "Sure, we're opposed to using animals in research, but we're realistic enough to know the practice can't be stopped on a dime. So all we're demanding is that the animals be treated humanely, and towards that end we demand the law be changed to require that animals be housed in larger cages."
Of course, the idea is that until larger cages are available, research will be curtailed or would have to be done illegally. And the cost of replacing smaller, illegal cages with the larger legal ones increases the overall cost of doing research many times over.
The end is grudgingly accepted, but the means to achieve it are made costly and difficult to comply with.
Here's an example of a similar situation where the goal is acceptable, but the means to achieve it are made impossibly dangerous, with draconian fines and even jail time threatening those who fail to comply.
COUNTRY sportsmen keen on pigeon pie will need to put the cat among them first. Farmers and landowners will also need to hone their windmill gyrations and scarecrow impersonations if they are planning a potshot at crop-eating birds.
The Government has ruled that it is now illegal to shoot a crow, rook or pigeon for the pot without scaring it first. The legislation says shooters must attempt to frighten off the birds before pulling the trigger.
Only when the birds fail to respond can he or she shoot it for dinner. The same rule applies to farmers who have shooting days blasting woodpigeons and rooks to protect their crops or gamebirds.
At this time of the year thousands of people pull on their camouflages for a day’s rough shooting. They are now acting unlawfully. They too must first engage in frightening techniques to disperse the birds. Only if their antics are ignored can they shoot legally. Failure to comply can result in a fine of up to £5,000 or a maximum six months in prison.
The new rules emerged this week when new “general licences” were issued covering the killing of pest species, which also include magpies, jays, collared doves, Canada geese, and greater and lesser black-backed gulls.
However, without warning, a new rule was added that states: “This licence can only be relied upon in circumstances where the authorised person can demonstrate that appropriate non-lethal methods of control such as scaring are either ineffective or impracticable.”
In other words, the burden of proof falls on the shooter to show that she's innocent, not on the government to show that she's guilty. How 'bout them apples?
The “licence” referred to means a general permission for everyone; it is not a piece of paper, it is simply a law. Firearms licences must still be applied for in the usual way.
There was uproar from country organisations but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs denied that there was any change of law and issued a clarification. This has only added to the confusion, for it underlines that scaring must always be a precursor to shooting and that records of scaring may be required.
Defra said: “It is not a requirement that detailed records of non-lethal methods are kept, although this may be helpful under some circumstances. Users must however be able to explain why they believe that such methods are either ineffective or impracticable.”
Scaring records . . . is this to be believed?
The Country Land and Business Association, the National Gamekeepers’ Organisation, the Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance have lodged objections with the Government.
Clarissa Dickson Wright, a countrywoman and cook who enjoys cooking pigeon, said she despaired at the “fluffy bunny brigade” in the Government. She said: “Scare them off. Where to? To the next field or vegetable plot.
I think that's an entirely fair question, and it raises another. Am I liable for damages if, by successfully scaring birds from my own crops, they flee to my neighbor's plot where their depredations materially reduce his yield?
“What’s more, though possibly inadvertently, they have removed the countryman’s right to one for the pot.”
The “open general licences” are to allow exemptions to the EU Birds Directive which protects all bird species. This allows any authorised person to shoot a pest bird to protect livestock, crops or human health or to prevent other damage to agriculture. An authorised person is anyone with a firearms licence but can also cover cage-trapping.
Defra said: “People have to demonstrate that they have looked at alternative, non- lethal measures. If these have not worked then, yes, they can shoot species thast [sic] are causing problems.”
So there you have it: a law that literally begs for selective, arbitrary and capricious enforcement, one that permits a goal, but denies the means of achieving it without one assuming a burden of substantial legal jeopardy.
Permit the goal, but make the means to the goal dangerous and, perhaps, not worth the risk.
UPDATE: 4/15/05. The wording of the bird hunting law was changed, thanks to the Times piece:
:The key provision is that the shooter now no longer needs to demonstrate that non-lethal methods have proven ineffective or impracticable, but merely needs to be satisfied that non-lethal methods have proven ineffective or impracticable.
Brian
