(2-17-2006) The practice is not uncommon in Annapolis: a lobbyist will advocate some legislator’s pet issue as a favor in order to curry good will that might later help him pass his own bills. Sometimes a lobbyist goes further and promotes the legislator’s issue by spending his clients’ political assets, without their knowledge. That’s when ethics get strained. More to the point, that is what’s going on this year: sportsmen’s clout is being exploited to pass the anti-sportsmen Humane Society agenda, all so a lobbyist can suck up to the committee chairman who handles his client’s bills. Here’s the story…
Delegate Maggie McIntosh is a champion of the environment and consequently tight with the usual assortment of groups you’d expect. A member of leadership, it is also no surprise that she chairs the House Environmental Matters Committee. This year McIntosh agreed to champion a Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) bill to ban many types of hunting, and outlaw trapping altogether. Just like with anti-gun legislation, HSUS portrays the bill in terms of minor points they think the public might accept (a ban on internet hunting) but hides the broader effect in the fine print. (In Annapolis-speak, this is called a “snake.”) McIntosh drafted HSUS’s bill language accordingly.
Drafting a bill is the easy part, but passing it is another matter. HSUS still faced the problem of overcoming sportsmen opposition to any ban on hunting and trapping. That’s where the opportunistic lobbyist comes in: Bill Miles (at left) is the lobbyist of record for the Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation, a small group which fancies it is the elite in protecting the interests of sportsmen. Normally you’d expect him to be the face of his client’s opposition to hunting bans, but as we piece together the full story, Miles arrived to save the day for the HSUS agenda.
Miles proposed a clever plan. First, they would downplay McIntosh’s involvement on the HSUS bill by having another legislator serve as chief sponsor. Then Miles would arrange for McIntosh to receive a big sportsman award, spinning her as the community’s best friend. Finally, he would brazenly declare Sportsmen Foundation support for variations on the HSUS bill. When the bill comes before McIntosh’s committee, it would be greased to pass: anti-hunting legislators would smile and wink, pro-hunting legislators would be deceived into thinking real sportsmen back such shenanigans, and anyone questioning what was really going on would be told that it is okay since it is being handled by “sportsmen’s best friend” (hey, she had a prize!) obscuring that it was her bill in the first place.
That’s exactly how they are proceeding. The HSUS anti-hunting bill was gift-wrapped for submission by a newly appointed legislator, Del. Jane Lawton. (Her selection has added benefits to the left wing caucus: Lawton has been in her seat for only three months and could benefit from quick catch up, since she needs to pass a bill with her name on it before the election. Being seen as passing the HSUS bill will be especially lucrative since HSUS has a strong presence in her Montgomery County district.) As written, HB 968 would ban hunting by disabled hunters who need any sort of mechanism to go afield; it would preclude use of any technology for remote observation of game, birds or other wildlife; and it would ban trapping altogether, a key goal for HSUS. The bill is full of ‘snakes.’
And at a banquet in Annapolis on February 16th, Mile’s Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation indeed gave their big sportsman award to Delegate Maggie McIntosh. Now, obviously they’re free to give anyone any award they want, but the contradictions here are glaring. Never mind how many sportsmen might deserve the award after years of service. McIntosh’s committee has been a killing ground for real pro-sportsmen bills in the past, and as a rabid anti-gunner she is one of the regular co-sponsors of an outright ban on possession of semi-auto firearms. In spite of this, Miles surprised everyone in his client’s organization by insisting that McIntosh receive their top honors.
What in the world would prompt Bill Miles to use sportsmen resources to engineer passage of legislation sought by sportsmen’s opposition? Only Miles knows for sure, but the simplest answer is ‘business.’ According to the ethics commission, Miles is registered with six clients. All of their legislation goes through one place: Maggie McIntosh’s Environmental Matters committee. There’s no question that having the favor of the committee chair – by arranging for her to receive awards and helping pass her bills – would be an advantage to Miles in promoting his business.
Is there precedent for using sportsmen awards for self-aggrandizement? Sure. Last year Bill Miles arranged for the Sportsmen Foundation to give a new ‘leadership’ award … then gave it to himself!
Legitimate sportsmen who relied on the Legislative Sportsmen’s Foundation were duped. It can hardly be their fault, though. After all, you pay a lobbyist expecting he will watch legislation for you, not use your resources to pass your opponent’s bills. However, many members in the Legislative Sportsmen’s Caucus – elected officials affiliated with the foundation – simply don’t care. There are no standards for joining the caucus, which includes people like Peter Franchot (Delegate from Takoma Park who advocates a total ban on private firearm ownership) and Rob Garagiola (regular Senate sponsor of a semi-auto ban.) T hey use the caucus affiliation for political cover.
Does an internet hunt ban have any merits on its own? None. As mentioned, the HSUS version of the bill is full of snakes, skillfully written phrases whose effect would be farther reaching than portrayed on the surface. A narrow version is filed in the Senate, SB 521, but its passage would have no meaning: nobody could run an internet hunting business in Maryland because the state already bars possession of captive game animals (e.g., you can’t stock deer on a farm for someone to shoot remotely), and likewise Maryland can’t affect what some else does over the net in another state. There’s that pesky US Constitution in the way, with its interstate commerce clause. And we should point out: there is no longer any company offering internet hunting on the net anyway. This bill solves no problem.
Effective hunting laws are the ones which derive from our need to manage shared resources. We all agree to abide by some limits in order to ensure natural resources remain available to our kids. The proposed internet hunting ban has no such connection with resource management – it stems from the view that none of us should be allowed to hunt in a way that might offend the sensibilities of a handful of people intent on minding everyone else’s business.
[A desire to control things is not unique to the high-dollar Fund for Animals donors who keep HSUS flush with cash. Even rich sportsmen lean towards social engineering on occasion. The banquet where McIntosh got her award was attended by socialites willing to donate $5,000 per table for the chance to eat hotel food and clap. Some attendees honestly think they should ban “unethical” hunting, which to them is not just internet hunting, but anything that doesn’t give “fair chase” to the game. They say baiting is bad, as is any use of trail cameras to study game habits. High-tech decoys are out. They say buckshot on deer is unethical, that’s why the state requires shotgun slugs in most counties. (Of course, across the Potomac slugs are decried as unethical, and buckshot is required.) It won’t be long until gentlemen will be required to wear the right formal attire before pursuing the game of choice.]
HSUS wants a bill, and already worried proponents are talking about compromising on the Senate’s narrower scope. Why would anyone want to compromise on passing a bill that does nothing? Political momentum. The proponents want to be seen as winners, because success brings more success. If they can get sportsmen to agree on a phony-baloney hunting ban this year, they are closer to getting more bans next year. Trying to legislate ethics is a trap.
Where are other sportsmen’s groups? The National Rifle Association – which some view as the gold standard for sportsmen’s concerns – does not support either version of the internet hunting ban. The Maryland Sportsmen’s Association web site shows only partial support for new hunting limits. There’s evidence that sportsmen who read bills closely are rallying in opposition, though; columns run in a number of smaller newspapers around the state speak against the notion of an internet hunting ban as being stupid politics. They’re right.
Bottom line. Our interest in this is liberty, and the potential danger from out-of-control sportsman groups is plain. Gun-grabbers blur sport and liberty issues, so sportsman endorsement of gun control can be portrayed as the whole community’s support. (In truth, putting sportsmen in charge of liberty issues makes no more sense than putting the ACLU in charge of game management.) The Maryland Sportsmen’s Foundation was originally formed not to have strong involvement in firearm issues, yet it is already on record supporting “reasonable gun control.” The present situation makes clear they can do far worse damage to us in the future: What can be exploited today by HSUS can be exploited tomorrow by Ceasefire. We don’t need Sarah Brady working them like a puppet too, telling the public nonsense like ‘legitimate sportsmen only use expensive break-action shotguns, not semiautomatic firearms.’
Bill Miles has said this is all about ethical hunting. We think it is all about ethical lobbying. Any attempt to pass an internet hunting ban should be killed, and legitimate sportsmen should wake up to what is being done in their name.