Category: Animal Rights

Did HSUS Mislead its Insurance Company or a Federal Court?

Wayne_ClownThe Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is still facing blowback from the more than decade-long litigation drama involving several animal rights group, including HSUS, and their alleged racketeering scheme against Feld Entertainment, owner of the Ringling Brothers and Barnum & Bailey Circus. The latest issue? Whether HSUS misled its insurance company—or a federal court.

As readers may recall, a cohort of animal-liberation extremists sued Feld Entertainment, alleging elephant abuse, and lost. Adding insult to injury, however, was the ensuing countersuit. The court found that the activist’s key witness—a former circus employee who lied under oath—had been paid almost $200,000 by the plaintiffs and their attorneys, prompting Feld to bring a federal RICO lawsuit against the animal extremists.

While HSUS was not involved in initially bringing the animal-rights lawsuit against Feld in 2000, the group merged with the Fund for Animals (FFA)—one of the original plaintiffs—in 2005 while the litigation was ongoing. Usually, HSUS has no problem taking credit for the work of its affiliates—except, apparently, when this affiliation involves a federal RICO lawsuit. With racketeering allegations on the table, HSUS was quick to distance itself from the Fund for Animals, insisting that the 2005 marriage did not qualify as a merger.

According to HSUS CEO Wayne “I don’t love animals” Pacelle, FFA was separate from HSUS, with “its own board of directors and its own donors.” HSUS filed a motion to dismiss the RICO suit on this premise of organizational separation. According to court records, HSUS argued that while it “join[ed] forces in a corporate combination” with FFA, the two organizations did not merge and therefore HSUS wasn’t liable for any of the allegations. (Never mind, of course, that at least one payment to the witness was made on an HSUS check.)

Before the suit progressed to trial, HSUS joined the other animal radicals in forking over a combined $15.75 million to settle the litigation, covering Feld’s legal fees incurred by the “frivolous and vexatious” 14-year crusade.

HSUS released a statement responding to the multi-party settlement, explaining: “We expect that a substantial portion, if not all, of the settlement costs to The HSUS and The Fund for Animals will be covered by insurance, and in the end, that no donor dollars from The HSUS will go to Feld.”

One problem: HSUS was denied insurance coverage. The solution? Evidently, yet another lawsuit: HSUS sued its insurance provider. But now, it looks like three times won’t be a charm for HSUS.

National Union Insurance Co.—which denied HSUS’s request for coverage—has filed a motion for summary judgment in the suit brought by HSUS. Its motion sheds light on new evidence of glaring factual discrepancies in HSUS’s claims. Read more

Animal Rights

Public Land Predator Hunt Permit Yanked

A coyote hunting contest, or derby, if you will, has drawn lawsuits from the usual suspects in Idaho and a public land permit has been rescinded by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).

Idaho for Wildlife Executive Director Steve Alder said, “We worked very hard with the local BLM to be granted the permit,” he said. “After the BLM refused to grant us a permit last year, they advised us to start the permit process early and we jumped through every hoop they required. They issued us a permit and then the D.C. bureaucrats revoked it. The BLM policies need to be changed, and we will push for more legislative oversight of this out-of-control agency that is now caving to the radical anti-hunters.”

The hunt will go on and details are here…

Hat tip goes to the Outdoorpressroom

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

Unpacking the HSUS Gravy Train (2014 Edition)

The 2013 tax return of the deceptively named Humane Society of the United States, which was just filed this week, tells a familiar story: While dogs and cats fill up HSUS’s ads, the organization gives little money to pet shelters while wasting a pretty penny.

Only about 1%—one penny on the dollar—of HSUS’s $120 million budget is grants going to support pet sheltering. Local humane societies, despite having a similar name to HSUS, are not affiliated with HSUS, a common misconception among the public and HSUS donors.

Some good news is that HSUS’s contributions from the public were essentially stagnant. Based on HSUS’s annual report—which was released in May—it appears that general contributions to HSUS are down, but this is offset by an increase in bequests. Do your parents or grandparents have HSUS in their will by accident?

Here are some key points of what we’ve seen: Read more

Animal Rights

Agreement Reached in NC Red Wolf Lawsuit

GW:  Guess who’s behind the contrived issue…

RALEIGH, NC- An agreement has been reached in a lawsuit against the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, which will restore conditional coyote hunting in the five-county red wolf reintroduction area of eastern North Carolina.

The agreement will restore daytime coyote hunting on private lands in Dare, Hyde, Beaufort, Tyrrell and Washington counties by licensed or otherwise authorized hunters, with a special permit obtained from the Wildlife Commission and subsequent reporting of kill. In the other 95 counties of the state, coyote hunters may hunt during daytime or at night using artificial lights, and no special permit or reporting of coyote harvests is required.

The agreement stems from a lawsuit brought by the Southern Environmental Law Center on behalf of the Red Wolf Coalition, Defenders of Wildlife and the Animal Welfare Institute. The suit alleged the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission violated the federal Endangered Species Act by allowing coyote hunting in Dare, Hyde, Beaufort, Tyrrell and Washington counties where a non-essential experimental re-introduction of the red wolf is occurring. A court-ordered injunction issued in May halted coyote hunting in the five counties, except under extremely limited circumstances. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

Groups Opposed to Citizen Petitions in Colorado

On November 4, the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) joined a host of sportsmen’s organizations in signing two letters expressing opposition to citizen petitions that will come before the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) Commission at their meeting in Burlington on November 13. The first petition on the agenda includes a request that the CPW Commission use its regulatory authority to ban the use of traditional lead ammunition for hunting.

However, supporting documents submitted in support of the petition fail to cite any evidence of population-level impacts to the state’s fish and wildlife resources caused by traditional ammunition and also greatly underestimate the effect that a ban would have on consumers’ access to readily available, affordable ammunition throughout the state. Furthermore, the petition fails to recognize the role that hunting and recreational shooting play in supporting fish and wildlife through the American System of Conservation Funding, which serves as the primary mechanism to generate critical conservation dollars for state agencies such as Colorado Parks and Wildlife. Click here to view the letter.

The second petition before the Commission was initiated in response to a legal moose harvest at the U.S. Forest Service’s Brainard Lake Recreation Area during archery season. Subsequent to a licensed hunter shooting a moose in the area during the established hunting season in September, a group of non-consumptive public land users who witnessed the event have asked the CPW Commission to prohibit hunting within a one-mile radius of the Recreation Area.

Granting this petition based on the whims of public land users who do not wish to be exposed to hunting would fail to acknowledge the critical role that sportsmen and women have played in establishing a healthy moose population in Colorado and would unnecessarily limit hunting access in an area that has been enjoyed by hunters for many years.

Using state wildlife management authority to close off federal lands that are open to hunting would set a dangerous precedent and imply that hunters should be held to a different standard than other public land users when it comes to accessing the outdoors. Click here to view the letter.

Colorado state law provides any interested person with the right to petition the Parks and Wildlife for the issuance, amendment or repeal of a rule. Pursuant to the Commission’s policy, petitioners will present evidence of the need for a rule change and the Commission will determine whether to support, reject, modify or accept a petition for further consideration, in which case the petitioners will be asked to work with agency staff to develop regulatory language and any other supporting materials to be considered at a later date.

Ammunition, Animal Rights, Hunting

CNN Axes Pro-HSUS Host

This from www.humanewatch.org

Page Six reported recently that CNN has laid off Jane Velez-Mitchell, who hosted a 7 p.m. nightly news show on HLN. We don’t know much about her other reporting, but she was a big fan of HSUS, having its flaks on air a number of times, often to bash farming. JVM’s “reporting” on HSUS’s issues came across not as news but as advocacy –Velez-Mitchell herself is a vegan and animal rights activist and outspoken about it.

So the question is, will HSUS find a new home on some other talking head’s show? The leading candidate could be Al Sharpton, the race-baiting and consistently questioning host of MSNBC’s PoliticsNation.

HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle was on Sharpton’s show recently to discuss animal rights and the elections. Those elections, by the way, didn’t fare so well for HSUS, with the organization’s $1.5 million investment in an astroturf ballot measure in Maine rejected by voters, the same rebuff HSUS received when it ran a nearly identical initiative in 2004.

The interview wasn’t all bad, though—at least Sharpton pronounced “Pacelle” correctly.

We’ll have to see if this alliance between the slick Pacelle and the hapless Sharpton turns into a regular on-air romance. But if things don’t work out, there’s always Al Jazeera.

Animal Rights

Victory in Maine but Conservation Still an Issue

GW:  The issue is well defined here and imagery continues to blind the least affected populace.  As in Michigan’s wolf conservation, those in the big cities can always stomp those in rural areas, if well duped.  “Some… don’t want to see wildlife managed or game killed by hunters. Those who make a living opposing hunting are capitalizing on this public unrest and uncertainty, if not creating it.”

MISSOULA, Mont.- Maine voters rejected Question 1, a ballot initiative to ban sportsmen’s use of bait, hounds, and traps. If passed it would have negatively affected Maine hunters and the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife’s ability to manage the states black bear population. But the vote was really about more than just bear hunting methods, said the Boone and Crockett Club today.

 

“We’re living in a time when conservation and wildlife management are being challenged and the motives are not always what’s best for wildlife or people,” said Boone and Crockett Club President Bill Demmer. “Somewhere along the way we have lost the meaning of what conservation is and the full measure of its benefits. It has always meant wise and prudent use without waste. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, it means development as much as it does protection.” Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

Sportsmen Prevail in Maine Bear Hunting Ban

In a ballot initiative with national repercussions, Maine voters once again sent an unmistakable message to animal-rights extremists: stay out of our state.

For the second time in 10 years, Maine voters resoundingly rejected a ballot initiative backed and bankrolled by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Throughout the battle on Question 1, which would have banned the use of bait, dogs and traps when bear hunting, sportsmen and professional wildlife managers who opposed the initiative continually maintained a double-digit lead in the polls.

“This is a great victory for sportsmen. It shows that scientific wildlife management can withstand a direct attack from the well-funded anti-hunting movement,” said Evan Heusinkveld, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s (USSA) vice president of government affairs. “Despite pumping more than $2.5 million into this campaign, HSUS received a loud and clear message from Maine voters that their radical agenda is out of touch with modern wildlife management.” Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting

Sportsmen Prevail in Maine Bear Hunting Ban

In a ballot initiative with national repercussions, Maine voters once again sent an unmistakable message to animal-rights extremists: Stay out of our state!

For the second time in 10 years, Maine voters resoundingly rejected a ballot initiative backed and bankrolled by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). Throughout the battle on Question 1, which would have banned the use of bait, dogs and traps when bear hunting, sportsmen and professional wildlife managers who opposed the initiative continually maintained a double-digit lead in the polls.

“This is a great victory for sportsmen. It shows that scientific wildlife management can withstand a direct attack from the well-funded anti-hunting movement,” said Evan Heusinkveld, the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance’s (USSA) vice president of government affairs. “Despite pumping more than $2.5 million into this campaign, HSUS received a loud and clear message from Maine voters that their radical agenda is out of touch with modern wildlife management.” Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting
1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 60