Category: Animal Rights

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

Maine Deception: The Real Agenda of HSUS

By Nick Pinizzotto

I read with amusement Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) president and CEO Wayne Pacelle’s article in the Sept. 27 edition of the Bangor Daily News. The first thing that struck me was the photo of Pacelle clad in a flannel shirt knocking on doors in Bangor to ask for support of the HSUS-led initiative to ban the most effective means of controlling the bear population in Maine. The fact is, Mr. Pacelle’s organization and qualifications to comment on Maine’s bear issues are as genuine as his donning of a flannel shirt; they’re all a charade meant to sell residents on an agenda that will cost the state financially and environmentally.

Mr. Pacelle is a Yale-educated, suit-wearing resident of Washington D.C. who runs the world’s largest anti-hunting organization, and Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting is nothing more than an HSUS storefront. HSUS has contributed more than 97 percent of Question 1 funding. They are the ones who hired a California-based firm to gather signatures to get it on the ballot in the first place.

In other words, it’s not the people of Maine who are asking for bear management to change, rather, it’s a predictable HSUS strategy to further their radical agenda, one they’ve used in other states – including Maine in 2004. Having pumped more than $2.5 million into the campaign, Mr. Pacelle and HSUS believe they can buy Maine’s voters, and buy their way closer to stopping all forms of hunting across the country – their ultimate goal.

I was also amused by Mr. Pacelle’s quote in an August 11 Bangor Daily News article where he stated, “This time, we have seen some of the dirty tricks already, and I think we’ll be ready for them.” As the CEO of HSUS, Mr. Pacelle is certainly qualified to talk about “dirty tricks.” Deception has landed his organization in hot water during the last year; a few examples: Read more

Animal Rights

U. S. Officials: Trophy Hunting Can Help Save African Lions

DALLAS – In a new proposal to list the African lion as a threatened species, U.S. officials acknowledge that lawful hunting is a tool that can help save the species from extinction. Dallas Safari Club (DSC) is encouraging its members to keep hunting lions, but be selective.

Science shows that hunting older male lions has no long-term effect on the sustainability of lion populations. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

In Major Setback for Anti-Hunting Efforts, FWS Rejects Attempts to Stop Lion Hunting

Washington, D.C. — Today, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) rejected the claim that the African lion merited listing as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.  After a long and comprehensive review of the species status, which included information from the foremost lion researchers in the world, the FWS concluded that the African lion simply is not on the brink of extinction and did not merit listing as an endangered species.

The FWS concluded “[s]port-hunting was not found to be a threat to the species at this time.” This conclusion is a blow to the anti-hunting rhetoric put forward by organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States and International Fund for Animal Welfare. The FWS’s conclusion contradicts the assertions made by these anti-hunting organizations in the petition they filed with FWS to have the lion listed as endangered. The on the ground facts and the science simply did not support their position.

“By rejecting an endangered listing, the FWS has officially recognized the reality that the African lions are not actually on the brink of extinction.  More important, today’s decision will likely help further the cooperative efforts of the African nations, and the many organizations and individuals who are working to study and ensure lion populations are sustainable today and into the future.” said Safari Club International Foundation (SCI Foundation) President Joe Hosmer. “Given the outstanding efforts of African governments in creating and maintaining protected strongholds for a large majority of the lion population, it is doubtful that the Service will be able to defend its conclusion that the lion is threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future.” Read more

Animal Rights, Poachers

New Funding Encouraged for Non-Game Species

GW:  I find this proposal to be a sincere approach to the manner in which funding by animal-rights groups has been decimated through frivolous lawsuits by gaming the system.  Equal Access to Justice reforms have been stalled by Democrat leadership in the U.S. Senate by Harry Reid and will never happen, because his animal-rights supporters count on the money to fuel anti-hunting drives across the country.  “…Goals and actions [include] identifying and developing new sources of dedicated, long-term funding for federal, state, and tribal fish and wildlife agencies to support conservation and hunting…”

MISSOULA, Mont.- Four Boone and Crockett Club members are serving on a panel charged with developing new funding mechanisms for conservation. The goal is bridging the funding gap between game and nongame species – a concept heartily endorsed by the Club.

The 20-member Blue Ribbon Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources was announced at a recent Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies meeting.

Download Blue Ribbon Panel
brochure here.

The panel is co-chaired by Johnny Morris, CEO of Bass Pro Shops and regular member of Boone and Crockett Club. The panel also includes three professional members of the Club including Becky Humphries, Steve Williams and John Tomke. Read more

Animal Rights, Fishing, Hunting, Wildlife

Maine Bear Hunting Issues and HSUS

On Nov. 4, Maine residents will vote on Question 1, a ballot initiative foisted upon them by a special-interest group and funded almost entirely by out-of-state monies. At stake is the ability of the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to properly manage black bear populations in the Pine Tree State. Question 1 seeks, in effect, to ban bear hunting. The initiative would make it illegal to hunt bears over bait, with dogs or by trapping. In the impenetrable forests of Maine, those three methods account for 93 percent of the yearly harvest from the state’s robust population of 30,000 black bears.

Question 1 would hamstring the fish and wildlife department’s ability to scientifically and effectively manage black bears in Maine. The consequences being an unhealthy increase in bear populations, increased human-bear conflicts, increased management costs to taxpayers and economic losses that reverberate throughout the state. This has proven true in other states where the Washington D.C.-based Humane Society of the United States, which has organized and funded more than 97 percent of the $2.1 million campaign, has successfully passed similar measures – most notably in Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife

HSUS Manipulates Judicial System in Attempt to Muzzle Biologists

GW:  Nothing new here about those that would change man’s relationship with animals by any means to thwart the only means to genuine conservation:  hunting.

On top of spending millions of dollars to buy the Question 1 ballot initiative, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is also trying to muzzle the most trusted source of information about bears in Maine, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (IF&W). On Sept. 30, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting sued the department because the agency is telling voters that unregulated bears pose a significant risk to public safety.

“From the start, the wildlife management professionals have been opposed to Question 1,” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA vice president of government affairs. “They have made sure that people know that bears are dangerous predators, especially when in close proximity to people.”

Banning the most effective means to control the state’s bears will lead to an exploding population and a drastic increase in dangerous human-bear conflicts. All across the country people are being attacked by bears, and those states don’t have nearly as many bears as Maine does. That is why Question 1 is dangerous, and that is what HSUS does not want the public to hear.

On Thursday, Oct. 8, Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting asked the court for a temporary restraining order in an effort to pull TV ads off the air featuring wildlife agency personnel and their opposition to Question 1.

“The antis know that the biologists and game wardens are a trusted source of information for Maine voters, so now they are hoping to find an activist judge who will clean up their mess,” said Heusinkveld. “Not only is it the responsibility of the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife to explain to voters how this would impact them, it would be negligent if they didn’t speak up. This issue truly is a concern for public safety and we’re proud the department has taken the initiative to stand up and speak out about the danger Question 1 poses to all Mainers.” Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting

Ideology Masquerading as Science

The Humane Society of the United States is a radical animal “liberation” group run by longtime activists who have a vision to eliminate society’s use of animals. That’s not just animals for food. For instance, HSUS president Wayne Pacelle has said “I don’t love animals or think they are cute” and “I don’t want to see another cat or dog born.”

So it’s especially rich that Pacelle had a blog post this week titled, “Cruelty and Ideology Masquerading as Science.” Pacelle takes issues with the recommendations of some wildlife experts that Mainers be allowed to use baiting in order to hunt bears. HSUS is pushing a ballot measure to ban this practice next month.

But who’s letting ideology drive their point of view?

On one hand, you have wildlife biologists defending the use of Maine’s practices on scientific grounds. According to the experts, baiting is needed because black bears are hard to hunt, especially in Maine’s dense woods. Banning baiting will make it harder to hunt them, and therefore there’s a likelihood of unwanted bear-human encounters increasing. See New Jersey, which after banning bear hunting entirely re-instituted hunting a few years ago following problematic encounters.

On the other hand, HSUS is trying to silence the expert voices. The group has filed a lawsuit against Maine to try to stop state employees from speaking out against the measure. (State officials have even received threats.)

While experts line up on one side, on HSUS’s side there isn’t exactly what you’d call a grassroots campaign. Over 96% of the funding for the Maine ballot group has come from HSUS or its lobbying arm. The ballot group’s leader, Katie Hansberry, is an HSUS employee and lawyer from Massachusetts, and Pacelle, who has been going door to door in Maine, is a lobbyist who lives in Washington, D.C.

Hopefully Mainers tell HSUS they can handle their own issues just well enough. And hopefully they see that this ballot campaign isn’t about trying to make hunting “fairer” or easier—HSUS has an ideological opposition to hunting and wants to make it more difficult, even if the consequences aren’t so great for residents. Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting

RMEF: Silver Linings in Wyoming Wolf Management Ruling

GW:  More wasted taxpayers’ money because of the Equal Access to Justice Act.  Why?  Because Senator Reid will not let reform to come to a vote, despite the efforts of the House.  Why?  Because animal rights whackos are part of his base.

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation maintains a ruling that restores federal protections to wolves in Wyoming is basically a technicality that can easily be fixed on Wyoming’s end. The State of Wyoming is in the process of adopting an emergency rule to do so.

U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson ruled out of her Washington D.C. courtroom that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was wrong to rely on Wyoming’s non-binding promises to maintain a buffer above the FWS minimum of 10 breeding pair and at least 100 wolves outside of Yellowstone Park and the Wind River Indian Reservation. Montana and Idaho initially had the 10 breeding pair and 100 wolf minimum, but a 50 percent “buffer” of 15 breeding pairs and 150 wolves was implemented for those two states.

The plaintiffs argued the following four points about the Wyoming wolf population, and they were denied a favorable ruling by Judge Jackson relative to the first three:

Wolves have not recovered.
Wolves are at risk because of a lack of genetic connectivity.
Wyoming allowing wolves to be treated as a predator in some areas does not meet the Endangered Species Act requirements of protections over a significant part of the species’ range.
Wyoming’s current regulatory mechanism to insure a population of more than 10 breeding pair and 100 wolves is inadequate and represents a non-binding promise.

“There are some silver linings within this ruling handed down from Judge Jackson as she ruled against three claims made by the plaintiffs including confirmation of the fact that Wyoming’s wolf population has recovered and is not endangered,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We anticipate Wyoming will be able to fix the issue with how its wolf management plan is written to satisfy the court.” Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife
1 … 17 18 19 20 21 … 59