ThinkingAfield.org

Category: Animal Rights

HSUS Booted From CPAC

This from humanewatch.org…

logoCPACaltLast week we questioned why the radical Humane Society of the United States would be permitted to exhibit at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). After all, would PETA be welcome at a conference of political conservatives? Probably not. It didn’t take long for HSUS to get the boot.

Once CPAC organizers got wind of HSUS’s anti-agriculture and anti-hunting agenda, HSUS quickly lost its spot at the convention. Plus, when it comes to political spending, 80% of HSUS money spent through its lobbying arm Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF) and corresponding PAC goes to fund Democratic candidates and liberal causes, according to FEC records.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation explains:

The presence there of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) with its anti-hunting agenda made little sense — except that HSUS works to hide its true political nature under the guise of being a funder of animal shelters.

In fact, this group sends next to nothing to local shelters. So when the watchdog group HumaneWatch pointed this out to CPAC management, supported by NSSF, action was taken and HSUS was shown the door.

Read more

Animal Rights

SCI Provides Winning Arguments Against Constitutional Challenge to Three Antelope Rule

Posted by firstforwildlife on March 6, 2015 · Leave a Comment

3 antelope ruling dama gazelleSafari Club International played a pivotal role in a federal district court’s ruling that dismissed a constitutional challenge to the law that exempts the hunting of U.S. captive members of three exotic antelope species from permit and other Endangered Species Act requirements.  Based in great part on SCI’s arguments that the anti-hunting plaintiffs lacked standing to raise their constitutional claims, the D.C. federal district court dismissed the case on March 4, 2015.

Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

Did Wolves Really Change Rivers?

This from the Boone and Crockett Club…

One year ago, the pro-wolf movement produced a video titled “How Wolves Change Rivers”. The video proclaimed that wolves interaction with elk and deer populations was responsible for a trophic cascade in Yellowstone Park which ultimately improved the ecosystem. The dramatically narrated video went viral, and to date has had nearly 15 million views, undoubtedly altering millions of non-hunters’ perceptions of wolves, while creating fanatical support for unmanaged wolf populations.

A recent study covered by Discover Magazine challenges that claim.

“Changes in the system were perceived as a consequence of wolves,” Middleton explains, but these reintroduced predators actually have a relatively small impact—one that is far outsized by the hoopla surrounding them. The elk population in Yellowstone is at the mercy of a much larger, human-altered ecosystem.”

Discover Magazine’s Article

Video: How Wolves Change Rivers

Boone and Crockett Club’s Stance

Animal Rights, Wildlife

Michigan DNR appeals federal court’s wolf decision

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources today filed an appeal of a December 2014 federal district court ruling that returned wolves in Michigan and Wisconsin to the federal endangered species list and wolves in Minnesota to federal threatened species status. The appeal – filed by the Michigan Attorney General in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – asks the court to uphold the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s December 2011 decision that removed the Great Lakes Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of wolves from the federal endangered species list.

 

“Returning wolf management to wildlife professionals in the state of Michigan is critical to retaining a recovered, healthy, and socially-accepted wolf population in our state,” said DNR Director Keith Creagh.

 

“Michigan residents who live with wolves deserve to have a full range of tools available to sustainably manage that population.” Wolves in Michigan are 15 years past the population recovery goals set by the federal government. The DNR will argue against the federal district court’s ruling that wolves must recover across their historic range – which includes the lower 48 states and Mexico – before Michigan’s wolf population can be removed from the federal endangered species list. In addition, the state will argue against the district court’s conclusion that the USFWS failed to demonstrate that Michigan’s laws and regulations adequately protect the wolf population within Michigan.

 

“Wolves in Michigan and the other western Great Lakes states are fully recovered from endangered species status, which is a great success story,” said DNR Wildlife Division Chief Russ Mason. “Continuing to use the Endangered Species Act to protect a recovered species not only undermines the integrity of the Act, it leaves farmers and others with no immediate recourse when their animals are being attacked and killed by wolves.”

 

Michigan’s wolf population numbers approximately 636 in the state’s Upper Peninsula. With the return to federal protection in December 2014, the DNR lost the authority to use a variety of wolf management methods, including lethal control, to minimize wolf conflict with humans, livestock and dogs. The change in status also suspended state authority that allowed livestock and dog owners to protect their animals from wolf depredation when wolves are in the act of attacking those animals.

 

The federal district court’s December 2014 decision came in response to a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States, in which the State of Michigan participated as a defendant-intervener arguing against returning the Great Lakes DPS of wolves to the endangered species list. Michigan joins the USFWS and a number of hunting and conservation organizations in appealing the ruling.

 

For more information about Michigan’s wolf population and management plan, visit www.michigan.gov/wolves.

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

HSUS Declares Maine Bear Hunting a Target in 2016

Just months after a resounding defeat by Maine voters, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has announced plans to bring yet another ballot issue on bear hunting back to Maine.

On Tuesday, Feb. 24, lawyers for HSUS and the state of Maine were in court to debate the lawsuit brought by HSUS against the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. That suit sought to stop the state’s wildlife experts from explaining to voters the true dangers of HSUS’s bear hunting ban. Despite an overwhelming decision by Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler that sided with the state’s right to provide comments, HSUS continues to pursue a legal challenge.

As part of the discussions about the pending litigation, an attorney for HSUS, Rachel Wertheimer, advised the court that they will again put the question on the 2016 ballot, and will be filing the initial paperwork soon. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

HSUS Continues to Waste Taxpayer Dollars in Oklahoma

This from humanewatch.org

Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt is fighting back against the Humane Society of the United States’ attempt to stonewall his investigation into the group’s deceptive fundraising practices. HSUS sued Pruitt instead of cooperating and providing documents he had requested under the Oklahoma Solicitation of Charitable Contributions Act. AG Pruitt’s response to the lawsuit said HSUS “cites little to no law’ to support its request for an injunction to stop Oklahoma’s investigation.”

In its 22-page response to HSUS’s lawsuit, AG Pruitt’s office stated:

Yet there are serious concerns that HSUS makes only paltry expenditures related to such shelters. Those concerns, along with the representations made, led the office to initiate an investigation of HSUS fund-raising practices and whether the expectations created by those practices have been met. Instead of cooperating with that investigation, the organization has decided to challenge a statutorily authorized civil investigative demand.

Read more

Animal Rights

Arizona Game and Fish votes to take legal action to support federal officials’ new 10(j) rule for Mexican wolves

Studies clearly indicate a relatively sparse ungulate population in western Arizona that is inadequate for supporting wolves.

Groups critical of rule lack on-the-ground field perspective of what changes will lead to success

PHOENIX — The Arizona Game and Fish Commission voted recently to intervene in a lawsuit filed by environmental groups earlier this year against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The lawsuit is over the Service’s recently-revised 10(j) rule that governs the management of Mexican wolves in Arizona and New Mexico.

“The Game and Fish commission took this action to defend the Service’s new 10(j) rule for Mexican wolves. The rule relies on sound scientific principles and helps address critical stakeholder concerns that have long challenged the Mexican wolf reintroduction effort,” said Commission Chair Robert Mansell. “It’s important that this action is not confused with the department’s recent action meant to encourage the Service’s development of a new recovery plan. The 10(j) rule and the recovery plan are designed to address very different aspects of Mexican wolf recovery.” Read more

Animal Rights, Wildlife

The Practical Nature of Wolf Management

By Glen Wunderlich

Michigan and other states, as well, understand wild game management.  In fact, by virtue of how well wildlife is managed is demonstrated in one word:  sustainability.  Nowhere in the history of regulated hunting has game suffered at the hands of hunting to the point that any game species has been threatened with extinction.  Thoughtful leaders have adhered to the strict guidelines of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and dutifully brought back countless wild animals from the brink of being wiped out.  Such is the case with the Great Lakes wolves.wolf

 

Yet, federal judge Beryl Howell has ruled that the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)  could not de-list wolves under its distinct population segment rule, in part, because Congress had never manifested an intent to approve the use of the distinct population segments for de-listing a species, though the rule could be used to list species. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

PETA Slew 2,324 Cats and Dogs Last Year

PETA MemorialsBetween 1998 and 2013, the radical animal rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), killed nearly 32,000 dogs and cats at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Sadly, the recent release of PETA’s 2014 kill numbers show that this disturbing trend hasn’t changed. In fact, it’s actually gotten worse. According to information provided to the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, PETA killed 30% more dogs and cats in 2014 than it did in 2013. More than 88% of the 2,631 dogs and cats taken in by PETA in 2014 were killed by the group—2,324 in total.

These numbers are certainly shocking—but not as shocking as new allegations made by a former PETA employee this week.

Former PETA field worker Heather Harper Troje wrote a blog post offering a scandalous in-depth look of what goes on behind the closed doors of PETA’s headquarters. In her post, Troje recounts numerous examples of Ingrid Newkirk, PETA’s president, ordering her to kill adoptable animals and to falsify records in order to enable the organization to cover their tracks and euthanize ever more animals. As Troje explains, “if you say the animal is ten pounds heavier than he is, you’ve given yourself room to euthanize another ten-pound animal off the books.”

Troje highlights the story of Black Boy, a German Shepard mix she took from a yard one snowy evening and brought back to PETA headquarters. Upon Black Boy’s arrival at the group’s headquarters, he was immediately euthanized. The recent case of PETA employees allegedly stealing and killing a family’s Chihuahua indicates that Black Boy’s fate was perhaps not an aberration but rather the rule.

According to Troje, “more and more I was euthanizing all the animals I brought in, and I could never bring in enough animals, or work enough hours, to please Ingrid.” If PETA’s most recent kill numbers are any indication, PETA’s kill-‘em-all attitude hasn’t changed one bit.

Animal Rights

PETA Penchant for Killing

WATCH: Because PETA Killed Me

PETA_killed_meHumane Society of the United States isn’t the only deceptively named animal rights group. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (which has the same radical animal liberation goals as HSUS) killed more than 2,324 cats and dogs in 2014 alone – an average of more than 6 per day – and an increase of 30 percent from 2013. This represents 88 percent of all pets PETA took into its shelter throughout the year.

To draw attention to PETA’s appalling record of euthanization and the alarming fact that 33,514 animals have died at the hands of PETA since 1998, Center for Consumer Freedom released a parody of the controversial Nationwide Insurance advertisement that aired during the Super Bowl.

This delusional animal rights group is talking out of both sides of its mouth – on one side preaching animal rights, while on the other signing a death warrant for 88 percent of cats and dogs in its care. PETA should be called a slaughterhouse, not an animal shelter.

PETA’s kill numbers come from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS), which requires such annual disclosures to be made. Most animals don’t even get a chance: A 2010 inspection conducted by a VDACS veterinarian of animal custody records discovered that 84% of the animals PETA took in were killed within 24 hours.

Despite its $47 million budget, PETA fails to find homes for the van loads of animals it kills. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk previously indicated to The Virginian-Pilot that the animal rights group could stop killing pets. Of course, it would mean cutting down on press stunts and celebrity photo shoots: “We could become a no-kill shelter immediately. It means we wouldn’t do as much work.”

 

For more information, visit www.PETAKillsAnimals.com.

Animal Rights
1 … 14 15 16 17 18 … 60