Hunters find themselves in the Crosshairs of SB-36

The state of Utah wants to kill people who hunt. Although it is somewhat hidden in Senate Bill 36, there is no getting around the fact that SB-36 is a call for state sanctioned murder.

The exact wording in the bill is this:
“The wolf is a predator and its presence in the state threatens the state's wildlife and
ungulate populations, therefore, it is the policy of the state that the wolf shall be destroyed or
removed from the state.” ( UT senate bill 36)

Of course, this is a statement about wolves, but let’s take a closer look at the logic. According to this statement, the wolf is a “predator”. It is also a threat to the state’s "wildlife" and “ungulate populations”. The statement then goes on to claim that because the wolf can be categorized as a “predator” and a threat to "wildlife" and “ungulate populations” it is the “policy of the state” to “destroy” it.

Alright, you might be confused by now as to what this has to do with murdering hunters. Well, let’s first define the word ungulate. Ungulate is defined as any of a number of mammals with hooves that are superficially similar but not necessarily closely related taxonomically. Hmmm. Sound familiar. Yeah, those are deer.

The argument the state legislature is using to kill wolves is that wolves are evil because they kill wildlife and deer. This argument only makes sense under the assumption that anything that kills wildlife and deer is evil. If you haven’t seen where I am going with this already, I will tell you. Hunters also kill ungulate populations and wildlife, and therefore, “it is the policy of the state that the hunter shall be destroyed or removed from the state”. It is ironic that this bill is widely supported by hunters, who are considered a nuisance to the state according to the logic in SB-36 and will either be removed or exterminated.

I know this seems a little far fetched, but if you really think about the logic this bill uses as a reason to exterminate wolves, it is extremely flawed. Here is an enthymeme I completed for this bill just to show how ridiculous the argument really is.

WATCO:

What are the consequences of wolf extermination on wildlife and ungulate populations

Claim:
Wolves should be exterminated

Reason:
wolves kill deer and wildlife

Assumption:
anything that kills deer and wildlife should be exterminated.

This assumption clearly includes hunters.

Rhetorical Analysis: NYT vs. Rammell

Rhetorical Analysis: Hunting Wolves, and Men

In 2009 Idaho legalized hunting for the grey wolf, but the new law didn't come without controversy. Heated comments by one Republican candidate were used by the New York Times to show the attitude of some of the people who support the slaughter. The NYT's purpose was to paint the law as a representation of everything that is wrong with Idaho.

The article starts out by quoting a Republican candidate for the governorship for the state. At a political barbeque, Rex Rammell was quoted as saying "Obama tags? We'd buy some of those." His statement was in response to a conversation about the wolf tags which were recently put on the market for hunters. Tags allow the hunter to be able to shoot and kill the animal legally. When asked about his comments, Rex Rammell said he was joking and that "Everyone knows that Idaho has no jurisdiction to issue tags in Washington D.C." The purpose of exploiting this quote is to show readers that supporters of the law are radical, and are even okay with jokes about assassinating the president. This is clearly a gross generalization by the New York Times, but it does resonate with people who already agree with the position of the article.

The article even goes on to attack Rammell as a "nature-phobe" because he was an elk rancher. Again, this characterization of Rammell as a liberal-hating-anti-environmentalist will not have any influence on people who already support the hunting of wolves. The most effective thing the article does in influencing people not to hunt wolves is paint the wolves as harmless and natural to the west. This approach goes a lot further than the sarcastic rhetoric used by the author.

Hunting Wolves, and Men is an entertaining but unpersuasive piece. It is interesting to here the attitude of a supporter of the law, but it only represents one persons views, and hopefully not the most intelligent views out there. Rex Rammell is admittedly a fringe candidate, and his comments are not likely to sway people to jump ship and save the wolves.