Safari Club International Seeks Help from Coyote Hunters

SCI’s Litigation attorneys are looking for Arizona and New Mexico coyote hunters. SCI’s Litigation Department will soon attempt to join litigation that could affect coyote hunting in Arizona and New Mexico – particularly in areas occupied by Mexican wolves (south and central Arizona and New Mexico). Please contact us if you hunt coyotes in these areas, have concrete plans to do so in the future and would be willing to work with SCI attorneys to provide a sworn statement to assist SCI in court. Contact Anna Seidman, Director of Litigation at

HSUS Tries to Ban Bacon and Eggs in Massachusetts

shutterstock_199429334On Wednesday, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and a ragtag consortium of animal-rights and labor groups announced a Massachusetts ballot measure that would ban most pork and eggs from being sold in Massachusetts by 2022.

The proposed law, which would ban the sale of all pork and egg products that come from farms using common animal housing systems, is hawked as a measure to protect public health and animal welfare. But HSUS and other radical animal-rights groups’ health and welfare claims are hogwash. Commonly used hen cages and pig maternity pens are designed to ensure animal welfare.

Read more


Lawsuit by Keep Michigan Wolves Protected Summarily Dismissed

Lansing—The Michigan Court of Claims today dismissed a lawsuit by anti-hunting groups challenging the constitutionality of the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act. In a strongly-worded opinion by the Honorable Mark T. Boonstra, the Court ruled in favor of the State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources and Natural Resources Commission and summarily dismissed the challenge to the law from Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, which was heavily financed and run by the Humane Society of the United States.

“The Attorney General’s office did an excellent job of defending this law on its constitutional merits,” said Drew YoungeDyke, public relations manager for Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC). “The Court recognized that the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was about just what its title says, managing fish, wildlife and their habitats with sound science.”

The Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (SFWCA) was enacted as a citizen initiative by the Michigan Legislature in August of 2014 under a constitutional provision that allows citizens to propose laws to their elected representatives. The initiative, led by the Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management coalition, contained provisions designed to manage fish, wildlife and habitat with sound science, including authorizing the Natural Resources Commission to designate game species (including wolves) and issue fisheries orders while requiring it to use sound science, discounting hunting and fishing licenses for active military members (hunting and fishing licenses pay for fish and wildlife management), and appropriating $1 million to manage and prevent aquatic invasive species.

The Court ruled that “the general purpose or aim, of the SFWCA is to manage fish, wildlife and their habitats,” and that, “provisions in the SFWCA relate to this object,” contrary to Keep Michigan Wolves Protected’s claim that they were unrelated to each other. Therefore, it ruled that Keep Michigan Wolves Protected “fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,” and dismissed the challenge. Read more

HSUS Petition Fails to Fracture Alliances

On June 30, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rejected a petition by the Humane Society of the United States concerning the listing of gray wolves under the Endangered Species Act. The petition requested that the status of gray wolves across the contiguous United States be changed from “endangered” to “threatened,” excepting Mexican wolves in the Southwest, which would remain as endangered status. HSUS couched this request under the guise of attempting to appear moderate and in search of compromise. Neither is true and the Sportsmen’s Alliance applauds USFWS for seeing it as an unwarranted smokescreen.

“This petition was nothing less than the radical HSUS trying to push its agenda on yet another wildlife management issue that they are in no way qualified to deal with,” said Nick Pinizzotto, Sportsmen’s Alliance president and CEO. “There is no room for misguided emotion when it comes to managing wildlife, and USFW clearly agrees.”

By proposing to list wolves as threatened, HSUS hoped to split the powerful alliance of sportsmen, agriculture and wildlife professionals. Under a “threatened” listing, more leeway exists to manage wolves preying on livestock. However, this “compromise” is not based on facts or science, and would, as a practical matter, would prevent proper wolf management that includes hunting.

With wolf populations rapidly expanding, and no other scientific reason to keep gray wolves listed under the protections of the Endangered Species Act, USFWS correctly rejected the petition. Read more

MUCC Applauds U.S. Fish and Wildlife Decision Not to Downlist Wolves

USFWS Rejects HSUS Petition to List Wolves as ‘Threatened.’

LANSING—Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) praised the decision by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to reject a petition seeking to list gray wolves in the United States as “threatened,” under the Endangered Species Act. The USFWS announced its findings yesterday.

“This decision by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologists confirms that wolves are biologically recovered in the western Great Lakes and that state management plans, like Michigan’s, are sufficient to sustain the wolf population and are the appropriate way to manage wolves in the region,” said Amy Trotter, deputy director for Michigan United Conservation Clubs and a member of the Michigan Wolf Forum.

The petition was filed by the Humane Society of the United States and other anti-hunting organizations including the Center for Biological Diversity, the Fund for Animals, the Detroit Zoological Society, National Wolfwatcher Coalition and the Detroit Audubon Society. It requested that gray wolves in the conterminous United States, except for the Mexican Gray Wolf, be listed as “threatened,” which would preclude any state from holding a hunting season for them for any reason. The USFWS ruled that the petition lacked “substantial scientific or commercial information” necessary to consider it any further.

Among its findings, the USFWS stated that wolves in the conterminous U.S., which are made up of multiple distinct population segments of gray wolf, are not likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future due to any of the five listing factors, and that HSUS’s claim that they have to be present in all unoccupied suitable habitat to be considered recovered is “based on a misinterpretation of the Act.”

The USFWS further stated that state management plans are sufficient to sustain wolf populations in recovered areas, including where hunting and trapping is allowed. Read more

HSUS Vows to Expose Internet Hunting…Even Though It Doesn’t Exist

This from

We recently obtained a fundraising letter from the Humane Society of the United States that really piqued our interest—and not just to mock the low-grade socks that were included. In the letter, the Humane Society of the United States claimed that donations help the organization “investigate and expose brutal industries” including “internet hunting.”

Huh? Come again? We have some familiarity with hunting terminology, but this one mystified us. Since HSUS is asking for money to help “investigate” internet hunting (while only spending 1% of its budget on funding local shelters), we thought we would do some investigating of our own to learn more about this industry. Here’s what we learned about Internet hunting: Read more

How Does HSUS Use Donations? Cheap Socks, For One.

This from

We frequently point out that the misnamed “Humane Society” of the United States gives a minuscule percentage of the money it raises to local pet shelters. But this begs the question: If HSUS isn’t spending money on shelters, where are its donors’ dollars going? Below is a breakdown of HSUS’s expenditures from its most recent financial statement.

Dollar_Graphic1 (2)

Employee compensation is the group’s single greatest expense. It’s not cheap to pay the salary of the $4 million man as well as HSUS’s army of lawyers and PETA alumni. Also noteworthy is the money HSUS is spending on “education.” Education can be a very misleading term in the charity world.

For instance, we recently received mail from HSUS that came with a free pair of socks (another thing the group squanders donor money on). The socks featured dogs and cats on them, which we thought was ironic since these are the same animals HSUS deprives of funding at local shelters. The socks came with two sheets of paper discussing HSUS’s agenda, and an envelope asking for a financial contribution. Read more

HSUS Pleads, Lies to Florida Gov. to Stop Bear Hunt

A surprise to nobody, the Humane Society of the United States is protesting the state of Florida’s consideration of managing their ever-increasing black bear population. In a June 10 press conference, HSUS mouthpiece Laura Bevan spread false information and called on the governor to interfere with biologist recommendations and to stop any future bear hunt. As is typical HSUS style, you can bet the press-conference circus was just the first step in perverting state and federal systems to advance their radical agenda.

With human-bear encounters, road kill and other issues increasing throughout many regions of Florida, the state’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has proposed a one-week hunting season in October for the bruins.

And, never missing an opportunity to stop hunting under any and all circumstances, HSUS used emotion and grandstanding to get the media’s attention in hopes of appearing relevant in any science-based discussion of hunting. The words they uttered, however, betray any semblance of knowledge on the subject. Read more

Rhino Hunter Culls Problem Bull in Namibia

DALLAS – Seventeen months after DSC’s controversial black rhino auction, the actual hunt ended in Namibia this week when the hunter killed a bull that scientists had identified as an impediment to the survival of its own species.

The old, aggressive, non-breeding rhino was known to charge and kill breeding bulls, as well as cows and calves, decreasing productivity and increasing mortality of the herd.

Removing this specimen will benefit rhinos both biologically and financially.

The $350,000 paid for the permit will go to Namibia to help fund law enforcement efforts to curtail indiscriminate killing by rhino poachers. (Note: It’s unclear whether the funding could be stopped by a recent lawsuit filed by animal-rights group PETA.) Read more

PETA Lawsuit Imperils Rhino Populations

DALLAS – Animal-rights group PETA is suing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to stop a management hunt that scientists say would benefit endangered rhino populations both biologically and financially.

Against a torrent of death threats, DSC auctioned the hunt in 2014 on behalf of the Namibia Ministry of Environment and Tourism. The auction generated a record $350,000. All proceeds were earmarked for rhino conservation in the African nation, and held in escrow pending U.S. approval of an import permit that would allow the hunter to bring home the taxidermy from his hunt. That permit was recently approved after U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists confirmed the benefits to rhino populations.

Basically, the hunt would be used to remove an older, non-breeding, aggressive black rhino bull known to decrease productivity and increase mortality of its herd, while the $350,000 would fund law enforcement efforts to thwart indiscriminate rhino killing by poachers.

PETA’s lawsuit could postpone the hunt as well as the funding for rhino protection.

“Next time you hear about poachers slaughtering rhinos in Namibia, thank PETA,” said Ben Carter, executive director of DSC. Read more

1 2 3 47