Category: Animal Rights

New Threat Facing California Hunters

Bill Karr of Western Outdoor News. Tomorrow, the California Fish and Game Commission will review a letter from the Center for Biological Diversity, questioning -what else- hunting in California. Here’s WON’s take on what’s in store for California hunting enthusiasts.

There’s a threat facing California hunters even worse than the Humane Society of the United State (HSUS) currently: The Center for Biological Diversity. And they have fired the initial salvo with a letter to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife last week, questioning the DFW’s implementation of elk hunting regulations. The topic will be brought up at the California Fish and Game Commission meeting December 10.

While the Center claims their concerns are that the DFW doesn’t have a statewide elk management plan in place and argues against any increase in elk hunting opportunities—and even elimination of elk hunting opportunities—the truth, is the organization is vehemently against hunting and consumptive uses of wildlife.

In addition, this move is taking one more step in the direction of replacing hunting as a wildlife management tool with uncontrolled predators killing California big game animals, not the least of which are wolves, now located in northern California. As wolves increase in numbers and spread throughout the state, they will decimate elk herds, forcing the DFW to eliminate hunting as a control method. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting

You Can’t Follow Your Money

By Glen Wunderlich

It may be a difficult concept for some individuals to understand, but hunters’ dollars have been the driving force behind wildlife conservation long before animals had lawyers. Through license fees, plus hidden excise taxes on firearms and hunting and fishing gear, ample funds have been generated for wildlife management. This year alone, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has distributed $1.1 billion in revenues generated by the hunting and angling industry to state and territorial fish and wildlife agencies throughout the nation. The funds support critical fish and wildlife conservation and recreation projects that benefit all Americans.

Enter into the equation the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), which was passed by Congress in 1980. Since then, it has been a cost-recovery resource for veterans, Social Security beneficiaries, and small businesses who find themselves in litigation against the federal government.  Any payouts – and, there have been many in the millions of dollars – are taken from funds meant for wildlife conservation generated by outdoors people. As a result, wildlife habitat improvements and management continue to suffer.

When the law was first enacted, federal agencies were required to report annually on EAJA applications and the amount of attorney fees each agency awarded to groups and individuals. However, that reporting requirement ended in 1995 due to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act. As a result, since 1998 there has been no uniform method of reviewing EAJA and there is no public accountability or transparency in the program.

Over the past 15 years, several thousand cases have been filed by animal-rights groups against the federal government. The result is that millions, if not billions, have been paid out, which in effect, makes us all contributors to radical causes we may not support.

Their strategy is simple: Overwhelm the system and bilk the public in the name of environmentalism or animal protection. As an example, in one petition the Center for Biological Diversity requested that the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) review 404 species in the Southeast alone for Endangered Species Act (ESA) consideration. Additionally, WildEarth Guardians filed two petitions listing 1,156 species for protection. Victories are often obtained because of technicalities such as missed deadlines and hardly ever for substantive matters.

And, remember, those of us, who have paid our hard-earned dollars into the system, have had no legal right to know how much of our money has been squandered. However, there remains hope.

This past week, the U.S. House approved unanimously by voice vote the Open Book on Equal Access to Justice Act (H.R. 3279), a bipartisan bill introduced by U.S. Representatives Doug Collins (R-GA) and cosponsored by Reps. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) and Steve Cohen (D-TN).  The bill reinstates requirements that federal agencies track and report the attorney fees they award under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

H.R. 3279 requires the Administrative Conference of the United States (ACUS) to track and report payments made by the federal government under EAJA in order to increase transparency and inform Congress of the impact and effectiveness of the law. The bill requires ACUS to submit an annual report to Congress and establish an online searchable database available to the public.  This will allow the public to access information on the amount of attorneys’ fees being paid under EAJA, to whom the taxpayers’ money is being paid, and from which agencies.

In the past, similar efforts to create this semblance of transparency promised by the current administration have stalled, because past U.S. Senate leader, Harry Reid (D-Nevada) blocked its advance by never allowing it to be brought forth for consideration. We can draw our own conclusions as to his rationale, but the results fly in the face of honesty, not to mention the best interests of our wildlife resources.

With Mr. Reid’s departure from the top of the chain of command, the American people now have a chance to follow the money. And, it’s about time!

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife ,

Protests at HSUS Event

Last month, the Humane Society of the United States held its annual gala at the posh Cipriani on 42nd Street in midtown Manhattan. If tax records are any indicator, the event loses money; HSUS’s tax return shows a net negative income for the event last year. But it does help HSUS hobnob with NY’s socialites and wealthiest residents.

It can’t help, however, that a crowd showed up to protest HSUS. We’ve had a presence at the last two galas, making sure attendees know the facts about HSUS. But this year, the World Dog Alliance, a Hong Kong-based charity, showed up to tell its story to potential HSUS donors. The Alliance, as you may remember, is suing HSUS for fraud after HSUS allegedly took a $500,000 grant and didn’t make good on its promises.

Here’s some video of the protest.

Animal Rights

Sportsmen’s Alliance Urges Kentucky Governor to Rely on Science

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

Animal Rights, Hunting

Cabela’s Supports Sportsmen’s Alliance with $1 Million Donation

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

Animal Rights

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 aseidman@safariclub.org

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

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

Animal Rights

SCIENTIFIC FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION ACT UPHELD

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

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

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

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

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

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife
1 … 10 11 12 13 14 … 58