HSUS Dupes the Uninformed Public in Oklahoma

GW:  Nothing new here…

The Humane Society of the United States isn’t affiliated with local humane societies, doesn’t run any pet shelters, and only gives 1% of the money it raises to local pet shelters to help them care for animals, according to its tax returns. We’ve seen many local humane societies try to clear up this confusion—but they don’t have a marketing budget of $50 million like HSUS, so it’s a tall task. Just look at one incident in Oklahoma last week—a state where the attorney general has clashed with HSUS.

According to Fox25, solicitors were going door to door raising money under false pretenses, a situation that prompted the Central Oklahoma Humane Society to speak out:

There’s a warning about door-to-door solicitors. A person or people claiming to be with the Humane Society are collecting money under false pretenses, the Central Oklahoma Humane Society told FOX 25. […]

Solicitors said they were collecting money for a behavioral program to help make dogs and cats more adoptable.

A number of concerned citizens called the Central Oklahoma Humane Society—which is no surprise, since many people assume that it would be related to HSUS. It isn’t, but HSUS is happy to collect money from an unknowing public.

At the time of the original report, HSUS denied involvement. But its tune changed in a follow-up story, and a spokeswoman tried to blame improper training of the solicitors.

What’s troubling is that—once again—HSUS goes to the well by raising money with cats and dogs, even though HSUS is ultimately more concerned with a PETA-like agenda to stop the use of animals for food. It’s unclear what “behavioral program” the HSUS solicitors were claiming the money would support; HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter. We suspect a lot of money collected would simply go to paying the solicitors.

An increased amount of training won’t change the underlying problems with HSUS: Deceptive fundraising that preys on name confusion between HSUS and local humane societies that do good work.

Wolf Attacks On the Rise in Wisconsin

Wed, Sep 14, 2016

Nearly 30 bear dogs have been killed so far in 2016. With the hunting season opening today, that number could skyrocket in the remaining months of the year.

Hunters are being warned of potential wolf attacks when running dogs this hunting season. (Photo: Holly Kuchera/iStock)Hunters are being warned of potential wolf attacks when running dogs this hunting season. (Photo: Holly Kuchera/iStock)

There’s always an element of danger present when bear hunting with dogs, but it’s expected to come from the bear. Not so in Wisconsin, as many bear hunters have found out the hard way this year. Wisconsin’s Department of Natural Resources is warning hunters to be on the alert as the year comes to a close, a result of more than 30 wolf attacks on bear dogs already in 2016.

As of press time, there have been 28 reported dog killings in America’s Dairyland this year, with the first coming in March. Two more followed in April, but the three kills were followed by a lull as the spring gave way to summer. Then in July another 11 dogs were killed by wolves as hunters began running their dogs ahead of the September bear opener. Read more

Alaska Plans to Challenge Over-Stepping Federal Wildlife Management Rule

Alaska officials plan to challenge in court a federal rule governing wildlife management on refuges there, hoping to end what they say is federal overreach by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).

The FWS recently adopted a final rule on predator harvests on wildlife refuges in Alaska, which state wildlife managers say violates the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, the Refuge Improvement Act, and the Alaska Constitution.

The rule prohibits taking black or brown bear cubs or sows with cubs, taking brown bears over bait, taking bears using traps or snares, taking wolves and coyotes from May 1 to Aug. 9, and taking bears from an aircraft or on the same day as air travel has occurred.

In 2015 the National Park Service (NPS), also under the Department of the Interior, placed similar restrictions on national park lands there.

While no litigation has been filed at this time, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker told the “Alaska Journal of Commerce” this week the state is planning a lawsuit to stop implementation of the rule, and is consulting with stakeholders and governors of other Western states because the federal overreach is a state’s rights issue.

FWS officials haven’t given one example of how these changes were necessary to ensure viable populations of any wildlife species. In fact, a statement by FWS Director Dan Ashe stated the rule was implemented, “In response to public interest and concern about predator harvests on national wildlife refuges across Alaska.”

State and federal officials have always partnered on wildlife management. But Alaska officials say the FWS’s recent actions cater to outside groups like the Humane Society of the U.S. and other environmental groups at the expense of the people relying on the resource.

The FWS manages 16 national wildlife refuges (76.8 million acres), and the NPS oversees 24 national parks (54 million acres) of land in Alaska. More than 60 percent of all land managed by the NPS is in this state.

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said, “The implications of the FWS rule are also far-reaching . . . and it will likely serve as a model for similar takeovers in the Lower 48.

Alaska Congressman Don Young said, “This unilateral power grab fundamentally alters Alaska’s authority to manage wildlife across all areas of our state. If this rule is allowed to stand, we could see an opening for future jurisdictional takings by the federal government – transforming a cooperative relationship between Alaska and the Fish and Wildlife Service to one of servitude.”

Alaska is not the only Western state to take the federal agency to court in recent years. Arizona filed litigation against the FWS for failing its “statutory duty,” to develop an updated recovery plan to guide the Mexican wolf recovery effort there. They contend the action was necessary to force the agency to provide such a plan, and that utilizes the best available science as legally required by the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

“The Service is currently in litigation with special interest groups and settlement discussions could possibly occur without our knowledge or involvement, as has occurred in previous Mexican wolf lawsuits. As the state’s wildlife authority, we will not sit on the sidelines when it comes to decisions affecting Arizona’s wildlife,” said Robert Mansell, chair of the Arizona Game and Fish Commission.

“The commission repeatedly requested an updated recovery plan from the Service over several years, as the current plan was developed in 1982, and fails to provide several of the key legal requirements. One of the key failings of the current recovery plan required by ESA is the identification of criteria required to downlist and delist this subspecies of wolves from the ESA. Without these criteria, it is impossible to ever remove Mexican wolves from endangered status,” said Mansell.

The New Mexico Department of Game and Fish (NMGF) recently received a temporary restraining order in a District Court to prevent the FWS from releasing endangered Mexican gray wolves there, until FWS can come up with a detailed, science-based recovery plan for the species.

After requesting the plan, the FWS released two pups, despite widespread opposition from ranchers, hunters, and wildlife management officials in that state.

NMGF’s Director Alexandra Sandoval said the releases were, “unpermitted and illegal,” and the action “demonstrates a disregard for our state’s sovereignty.”

— Etta Pettijohn

Delta Waterfowl Issues Special Statement on USFWS Director’s Commendation of Anti-Hunting Group


BISMARCK, NORTH DAKOTA — On Aug. 4, Dan Ashe, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, “re-tweeted” a “tweet” from Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States supporting the USFWS and Administration’s position on management of refuges in Alaska (See screenshot of Twitter page).In our opinion, the USFWS director should not be issuing commendations to HSUS, the nation’s most ardent anti-hunting group and a group that has worked relentlessly to limit/end hunting, scientific wildlife management and legitimate and well accepted uses of animals and wildlife. Ashe’s action is disrespectful to the millions of hunters and anglers who have been the most dedicated constituency and financial supporter of the USFWS.

What is most ironic about Ashe’s public affirmation of HSUS is that HSUS has made common practice of suing the USFWS and the Department of Interior. Those legal actions have consistently derailed USFWS management authority, cost the agencies untold millions of dollars, consumed precious human capital and stolen resources better spent on conservation of habitat and species. HSUS has not been a stakeholder in USFWS work. HSUS has committed no money, no time, nor advocacy to supporting the USFWS’s conservation mission and mandate. Read more

Do We Need Central Command to Manage Our Moose?

By Glen Wunderlich

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources will aid the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the federal agency’s evaluation of whether the northwestern subspecies of moose – found in four states including Michigan – should be added to the list of threatened and endangered species affording federal protection. 

 

The northwestern moose subspecies (Alces alces andersoni) found in the Upper Peninsula, including Isle Royale, northeastern and northwestern Minnesota, northeastern North Dakota, as well as a small, recently established population in Wisconsin is being evaluated for Endangered Species, brought on by a petition submitted by The Center for Biological Diversity and Honor the Earth.

 

It’s a simple scheme:  Get the animal listed for protection so that it can never be hunted, unless it is returned to all of its original territory.  That’s the current position, as determined by a federal judge relative to our wolf population – even though wolves are well beyond any established recovery goals.  And, if these extremists get their way, the same precedent-setting “logic” will be applied to moose.

 

During the subspecies status review – commonly referred to as a “12-month finding” –the Service will take a closer look at the moose subspecies population, including threats.

At this point, the Service will solicit additional scientific and commercial information from all sources to inform their decision.  Ninety-day findings are published in the Federal Register and represent the Service’s first step in assessing the measures proposed in the petition.

 

“In Michigan, the moose population has declined for a variety of reasons, including habitat loss, predation and climate change,” Russ Mason, DNR Chief said. “Moose thrive in cold conditions due to their thick insulating fur, long legs and wide feet. Warmer temperatures put moose at risk of overheating, which causes malnutrition and immune system concerns.” 

 

Moose are native to Michigan and occurred throughout all except the southwestern Lower Peninsula prior to European settlement. With habitat loss, hunting and brainworm, moose disappeared from the Lower Peninsula in the 1890s, and only a few scattered individuals remained in the Upper Peninsula.

 

In the mid-1980s, the DNR translocated 59 moose from Algonquin Provincial Park in Ontario, Canada and released them in Marquette County near Michigamme. These relocated moose increased their numbers, given improved habitat conditions with fewer white-tailed deer and poaching widely discontinued.

 

DNR population surveys in recent years have estimated the moose population at roughly 400 in the western U.P. and, based on citizen reports and field observations, about 100 in the eastern part of the region.  Michigan Natural Resources Commission determined that current conditions of the state’s moose population did not support authorizing a hunt.

 

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) makes a living suing mainly the federal government, and then recouping those fees and more. The Obama Administration recently cut a deal with the anti-hunting activists at the CBD on accelerated Endangered Species Act (ESA) listings. Per the legal agreement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is required to consider adding 757 species, subspecies, or distinct population segments to the list of endangered or threatened species. Decisions on all 757 must be rendered by October, 2016. The list includes species that are presently fished, hunted or trapped, including golden trout, cottontail rabbits, sage grouse, fisher, and wolverine.

 

The question is do we really need a judge from “Central Command” to mandate how we manage our wildlife?  I think not, but it’s a moot point – for now.

Harassed?

Have You Been Targeted?

SCI Litigation Wants to Know!

Animal rights and anti-hunting groups have made public records requests of state and federal agencies to get personal information about hunters. On some occasions, the groups used the information to harass hunters – sending ugly and even threatening e-mails and letters, and sometimes worse. Were you contacted by an individual or organization that requested and/or received your information? If so, we want to hear from you. Email aseidman@safariclub.org and tell us about it.

North Carolina Bill Would Put Money in HSUS’s Pocket

HSUS’s pals at PETA put out a few press releases every year calling for roadside memorials to animals killed in accidents. Now, a roadside memorial bill in North Carolina would result in cash to HSUS.

Meet House Bill 1066. The bill has nothing to do with animals. Rather it would establish a program to develop roadside memorials for people killed in automobile accidents.

Under the law, family members of the deceased would apply for a memorial. If accepted, the grieving family would pay five-hundred dollars for the memorial. No problem so far. But here’s the troubling part:

“Any fees remaining after covering the costs specified in this section shall be transferred on a quarterly basis to The Humane Society of the United States to be used to cover costs associated with rescuing animals in North Carolina”.

The bill states HSUS must use the money to “cover costs associated with rescuing animals in North Carolina.” HSUS only gives between $30,000 and $45,000 to pet shelters in North Carolina, according to its most recent tax return (2014). Yet HSUS holds over $250 million in total assets, and sent $55 million to Caribbean accounts that year. That’s to say nothing of the millions HSUS paid to settle a racketeering lawsuit.

From HSUS’s (unscrupulous) perspective, it’s a perfect play: Indefinite, free fundraising from people who can’t choose to donate anywhere else, such as local shelters that actually help animals.

There are plenty of other organizations that could use—and deserve—the money better than HSUS.

We’re guessing that, like a lot of people, the bill’s sponsor, Rep. John Bradford III, thought HSUS was a legitimate organization. For those wishing to educate him about HSUS, his email is John.Bradford@ncleg.net.

HSUS: Animals Over Hungry People?

If there’s one thing the Humane Society of the United States seems opposed to, it’s common sense. But in light of events in Ann Arbor, Michigan, you might be able to add logic, scientific facts, and feeding the hungry.  But before we get there, here’s the backstory.

Struggling with an out of control deer population, the city of Ann Arbor approved a deer cull given that deer-vehicle collisions were up 75%, the deer were straining the ecosystem, and the near certain increase in ticks carrying Lyme disease. Despite these sensible grounds, activists were outraged that deer had been hunted in their city.

Unsurprisingly, HSUS led the charge on non-lethal population control last year, lobbying for Ann Arbor to use birth control on female deer. Interestingly, the birth control, PZP, is developed using pig ovaries, while HSUS is generally against medical research using animals.

HSUS’s political ideology puts it at odds with biological and ecological experts.  According to wildlife expert Jim Sterba, PZP “for free-ranging whitetails, does not work. And it is neither practicable nor affordable.” That’s because PZP efficacy has only been proven on isolated populations , such as animals on islands or those living in a fenced environment. University of Michigan professor Christopher Dick, a biologist, had a blunter word for what HSUS is advocating: “Pseudoscience.” Read more

Lion Kill Fest: The Impact of the HSUS Ideology

When the “Cecil” the lion issue took place last summer, the Humane Society of the United States, the largest animal-rights organization in the country, fought to end the importation of lion trophies to the United States under the guise of protecting the remaining “endangered” population (an action the Sportsmen’s Alliance fought).

HSUS won that battle in part (but not in full, as explained below). Lion trophy importation from Zimbabwe (where the Cecil incident occurred) has effectively ended (although the door has not yet been conclusively slammed shut). But, as the Sportsmen’s Alliance said would happen, the consequence of shutting down trophy imports from Zimbabwe has had the opposite effect of what HSUS claimed – as now unsustainable populations of lions will likely face slaughter as new rules shut down the flow of money from U.S. trophy hunters.Lion-By Rumpleteaser (FlickrCC) sized for web

Currently, at least 200 lions are being considered for culling because of an unsustainable management paradigm – overpopulation and no revenue stream for continued support. And a revenue stream it is.

If just those 200 lions are killed, that’s a loss of $10 million dollars to just one area’s anti-poaching efforts, habitat conservation and acquisition, academic studies and all associated ancillary benefits to the local economy and people. The shortsighted and unsustainable rhetoric of the Humane Society of the United States and other animal-rights “warriors” is leading to more bloodshed in the form of economic and intrinsic loss of wildlife in Africa in mere months than has ever been spilled by hunters.

Read more

DNR: U.P. survey results indicate no significant change in Michigan’s wolf population

Michigan Department of Natural Resources wildlife division officials said today the size of the state’s wolf population has not changed significantly since the last survey was conducted in 2014.

DNR wildlife researchers estimate there was a minimum of 618 wolves in the Upper Peninsula this winter. The 2014 minimum population estimate was 636 wolves.

A wolf walks through the Upper Peninsula woodlands. “The confidence intervals of the 2014 and 2016 estimates overlap, thus we can’t say with statistical confidence that the population decreased”, said Kevin Swanson, wildlife management specialist with the DNR’s Bear and Wolf Program in Marquette.

Confidence intervals are a range of values that describe the uncertainty surrounding an estimate.

Swanson said, based on the 2016 minimum population estimate, it is clear that wolf numbers in Michigan are viable, stable and have experienced no significant change since 2014.

“Currently, deer numbers in the U.P. are at lows not seen in decades and we wondered if there would be a decline in wolf numbers as a result of this reduction in their primary source of prey,” Swanson said. “We also did not observe a significant difference in the number and average size of wolf packs as compared to 2014.” Read more

1 2 3 4 5 52