The Sportsmen’s Alliance believes wildlife management decisions belong in the hands of trained biologists who use data and proven science to balance habitats and mitigate human-wildlife conflict.
As such, the Sportsmen’s Alliance has sent a letter to Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear urging him to dismiss a request by the Humane Society of the United States that called for an emergency stop of the 2015 bear hunt, the impetus of which is based solely on emotional rhetoric and an espoused agenda to end all hunting.
In a letter obtained by the Sportsmen’s Alliance, Kathryn Callahan, the Kentucky State Director for HSUS, pleads with Gov. Beshear to stop the bear hunt. Using emotional language and making unsubstantiated statements, Callahan espouses a case that runs long on rhetoric and short on fact – statements the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife unequivocally and expertly refute with legitimate fact.
“At the end of the day, this isn’t about management or harvest quotas. It’s about their desire to stop bear hunting entirely. It wouldn’t matter if a single bear was the quota, the Humane Society of the United States wouldn’t approve, and they won’t be satisfied until all hunting is stopped everywhere,” said Adam Wright, Sportsmen’s Alliance associate director of state services. “We’re hopeful Gov. Beshear will listen to Kentucky’s expert wildlife biologists who rely on facts, science and data when managing wildlife.”
The “emergency request” by HSUS was spurred by the fact that the quota for the fall archery black bear hunt was set at 10 bears total, or five female bears only, but because bowhunters experienced greater than anticipated success rates during the two-day season, 22 bears were killed, 10 of which were females. Read more
Cabela’s, the World’s Foremost Outfitter of hunting, fishing and outdoor gear, has renewed its pledge to support and protect America’s heritage of hunting, fishing and trapping with a $1 million donation to the Sportsmen’s Alliance and Foundation.
Through Cabela’s Outdoor Fund, which began in 2010 and is largely funded by retail customers who round up their purchases to the nearest dollar, Cabela’s has been able to support conservation and advocacy organizations that leave a long-lasting impact on the outdoor community by providing and enhancing opportunities to enjoy the outdoors.
The $1 million grant will support the Sportsmen’s Alliance mission of protecting and advancing hunting, fishing and trapping in all 50 state legislatures, at the federal level, in the court system and at ballot boxes when animal-rights groups attempt to pervert the political system to advance their own agendas. Read more
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 firstname.lastname@example.org
On 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.
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
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
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
This from www.humanewatch.org…
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
This from www.HumaneWatch.org…
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.
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
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