Category: Animal Rights

They Cull Lions, Don’t They?

By Steve Scott

Editor’s Note: This feature first appeared in The Outfitters Wire (www.outfitterswire.com)

Remember Cecil the lion; the “iconic” lion shot by an American client of a professional hunter who didn’t have the requisite permit? The fallout was memorable:  from internet trolls to the Ricky Gervais’ and Jimmy Kimmel’s of the world condemned the hunter in particular and lion hunting in general as a barbaric act with no place in our modern society. And with the outcry of the masses, the Obama administration leapt into action, barring any further import of lions into the United States. It was a victory for the lions, right? Well, not exactly.

In what has come to be known as the “Cecil effect,” big-game hunting in Zimbabwe, especially for lions, has seen hunter’s numbers diminish to historic lows. And though a few lions from certain countries under certain conditions can be imported under new Trump administration rules, lion hunters are not exactly coming back in droves. The fear of capricious prosecution from a third-world government, or more likely, the fear of the social media equivalent of a tar and feathering has led to reluctant hunters and a dangerous lion overpopulation in one of Zimbabwe’s few quality wildlife areas, the Bubye Valley Conservancy. Because the lion’s numbers are skyrocketing due to lack of a sustainable hunting harvest, Bubye Valley Conservancy will likely have to cull at least 200 of the 500-plus apex predator’s roaming within its borders.

In a dramatic case of lions behaving…as lions, the big cats are taking a bite out of the populations of numerous species of antelope as well, including sable, kudu, and giraffe just to name a few. But it’s not only the antelope who suffer. Lesser predators such as leopard, cheetah, and the endangered wild dogs are finding it harder to make a living in the dwindling game fields.

Fortunately, there is a solution, but it is a harsh one; Nature’s solution. Lions will devour the ever decreasing herds of antelope to a point where there are so few game animals left, the hungry predators start killing domestic cattle, goats, dogs, indigenous people, you know, a sequel of The Ghost and the Darkness until eventually, mass die-offs of most species and then voila! No more lions. Oh a few will survive, but in such small numbers there will be time for the other species to rebound. It is Nature’s way. For in a world with 7.3 billion people and growing, wildlife has to pay its way. And since lions are no longer pulling their metaphoric conservation weight, 200 of their number are going to have to die anyway. Only this way, it is without the approximate $1,000,000 sustainable use hunting would have generated for the benefit of conservation. So congratulations to the anti-hunting lynch mob. You win and lions lose.

 

Animal Rights, Hunting, Wildlife ,

CharityWatch Downgrades Humane Society of the U.S. to “D” Rating

On the heels of the Humane Society of the United States being downgraded by Charity Navigator and losing its accreditation from the BBB Wise Giving Alliance, a third charity watchdog has some bad news for America’s supposed “most effective” animal charity. The respected CharityWatch has downgraded HSUS to a “D” grade in its most recent rankings due to HSUS’s highly inefficient spending practices.

CharityWatch takes a broad look at the consolidated finances of several HSUS entities and finds that 48% of HSUS’s budget is spent on overhead costs. (By our math, if you just count HSUS’s spending, over half of its budget goes to overhead.)

Even worse, HSUS cloaks millions of dollars in overhead as program costs. Essentially, HSUS counts fundraising material as “educational” costs. Imagine a direct-mail letter in which 75% of the letter is written off as an “educational” program expense, but only the last paragraphs asking for money are counted as “fundraising” overhead–even though the entire mailing is designed to raise money. HSUS counts millions of dollars as “program” expenses in this way.

This appears to be legal under accounting rules, but it’s a misleading and deceptive practice. HSUS tells people that 70 or 80 percent of its budget is spent on programs, when in reality it’s closer to just 50 percent.

If you want to effectively help animals, don’t give to the Humane Society of the United States. Instead, give to your local shelter.

Animal Rights

Houston Safari Club Awards Grant to Sportsmen’s Alliance

Houston, TX  – Houston Safari Club (HSC) continues its support of Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation through a grant of $15,000 to support their incredible efforts to defend hunting, fishing and trapping against lawsuits, legislation and ballot issues initiated by animal rights and anti-hunting organizations.

For 40 years, the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation has been able to achieve a 95% success rate of defeating anti-hunting led initiatives. Unfortunately, the number of new anti-hunting initiatives is increasing and the only way they can meet those challenges is with increased funding from supporters like HSC. “We’re extremely grateful that the Board and members of the Houston Safari Club continue to demonstrate the importance of fighting to protect our heritage,” said Evan Heusinkveld, Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation president and CEO. “It’s through the commitment of organizations like HSC that we’re able to engage in battles all across the country.” Read more

Animal Rights, Fishing, Hunting

BBB Removes Accreditation of Humane Society of the United States

Things just keep getting worse following the sexual harassment scandal at the Humane Society of the United States. Following the resignations of CEO Wayne Pacelle and Vice President Paul Shapiro earlier this year, the charity has now lost its accreditation from the Better Business Bureau’s charity-accreditation arm, the Wise Giving Alliance (BBB WGA). This news comes after Charity Navigator downgraded its rating of HSUS to just 2 stars out of 4—including a lowly 1 star for financial metrics, indicative of financial waste at the nonprofit. Animal Charity Evaluators, which recommends animal-rights nonprofits, has also pulled its approval of HSUS.

While the BBB hasn’t issued a statement for the removal of HSUS’s accreditation, it’s safe to assume the HSUS board’s initial decision to retain Pacelle after its internal investigation turned up several credible accusations of sexual harassment was the impetus for BBB WGA to initiate a review.

What’s particularly noteworthy is that the BBB WGA has been notorious for having weak standards. The BBB WGA has come under fire in the past for taking thousands of dollars from the charities it accredits in licensing fees for the BBB logo, which creates a clear conflict of interest to keep the bar low for accreditation. But even the thousands that HSUS has given the BBB couldn’t keep them in the evaluator’s good graces in the wake of HSUS’s #MeToo scandal.

Animal Rights

HSUS VP Dines With Potential Animal Rights Terrorist

The Humane Society of the United States is not the cute, fuzzy group it sounds like based on its name and its ads. It is a group run by animal-liberation radicals from PETA and other groups who simply market themselves as moderates in order to raise cash—money that they use to fund their campaigns. HSUS leaders have defended the Animal Liberation Front (an FBI-designated terrorist group) and praised PETA, among other things.

So perhaps it’s no surprise that last week HSUS vice president Josh Balk had dinner with Wayne Hsiung, leader of the extremist group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE). The phrase “direct action,” according to the FBI, is “criminal activity designed to cause economic loss or to destroy property or operations.”

DxE has openly admitted to breaking into farms and stealing animals. The FBI is reportedly investigating following a DxE theft of piglets at a Utah farm. Under the federal Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, passed in 2006, it is a crime  if someone “intentionally damages or causes the loss of any real or personal property (including animals or records) used by an animal enterprise … for the purpose of damaging or interfering with” its operations.

By its own admission, DxE appears to fit the legal bill of animal-rights terrorism. (DxE, of course, spins law-breaking as “open rescues” that are morally acceptable vigilante actions against “the system.”)

DxE is also known for its publicity stunt such as harassing restaurant guests eating a meal or haranguing people at the supermarket. DxE goes after animal protein suppliers that are considered by some to more humane, such as Whole Foods suppliers, because the group is against all meat, cheese, and eggs no matter how the animals are raised. DxE has the proposed goal of banning meat in Berkeley, CA, by 2025—and eventually everywhere. Essentially, they have the same agenda as PETA, except with more aggression and less killing of pets.

Why is an HSUS executive hanging out with this guy? Use Occam’s Razor. HSUS and Direct Action Everywhere have similar goals to stop Americans from enjoying meat, even if the means are different. HSUS needs to raise $100 million a year, so it’s not likely going to steal animals from farms and risk a federal investigation. But it seems to be another example of how HSUS leadership is quite cozy with the more radical members of the animal rights movement.

Animal Rights

SCI President Clarifies Position On Elephant Import Issue

The Press has been full of conjecture about SCI’s reaction to President Trump’s request that Secretary Ryan Zinke place a hold on the issuance of import permits for elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia.  SCI President Paul Babaz put an end to that conjecture with the following statement:

“SCI was very pleased when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service made findings that the importation of legally-hunted elephants enhances the survival of the species.  While SCI was disappointed to learn that the President requested a hold on importation permits issued under authority of the two enhancement findings, we understand that the President and Secretary Zinke wish to make certain that the facts and law support the positive enhancement findings.  We respect the President for taking the initiative to delve into the science behind those findings.  SCI remains confident that, given the opportunity, we can help the President reach the same conclusions that the Department of the Interior and, in particular, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have reached – that hunting and importation of elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia not only cause no harm to the species, but that these activities enhance species survival.  SCI will continue to work with the President, the Secretary, the FWS and the entire Administration to find ways to acknowledge and facilitate the beneficial role that hunting plays for wildlife, including, and especially, species like the African elephant.  SCI stands ready to respond to the President’s questions and concerns.  We will continue to work with this Administration and to help it to support, protect and defend hunting and sustainable use conservation.”

Animal Rights, Hunting

SCI Asks President Trump To Lift Hold On African Elephant Import Permits

Tucson, AZ – Today, Safari Club International President Paul Babaz sent a letter to President Trump, asking him to direct Secretary Ryan Zinke to lift the hold that he placed on the authorization of import permits for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

In the letter, SCI addressed multiple reasons why the hold should be lifted and corrected many of the common misconceptions about hunting, conservation and the elephant populations in Zimbabwe and Zambia. The text of that letter to President Trump follows:

 

November 20, 2017

Dear Mr. President:

 

On behalf of the 50,000 members of Safari Club International, I respectfully ask you to direct Secretary Ryan Zinke to lift the hold that he placed on the authorization of import permits for elephants legally hunted in Zimbabwe and Zambia.  By supporting Secretary’s Zinke’s authorization of import permits, you can reverse the senseless acts perpetrated by the Obama administration against hunting and the sustainable use conservation of African wildlife.  The Obama Administration’s refusal to authorize the importation of African elephants from countries, including Zimbabwe and Zambia, deprived those countries of resources they rely on to manage their wildlife, fight poaching and encourage community participation in conservation.  It is now time to put an end to the previous administration’s prejudicial and unsupported bias against hunting as a tool in wildlife management and conservation.

Secretary Zinke and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have made crucial, scientifically supported determinations about hunting and the U.S. importation of African elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Not only did the Department of the Interior’s wildlife and legal experts determine that the hunting and importation from these two countries will not hurt the African elephant species, they determined that the importation of legally hunted elephants from these two countries would “enhance the survival” of African elephants.  In short, they recognized, based on data they received from the wildlife management authorities of the two countries, the results of a species wide African elephant census, and the conclusions of the parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora, that hunting and U.S. importation would help conserve African elephants.

Unfortunately, many people who oppose the importation of legally hunted elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia incorrectly believe that a ban on importation will actually stop the killing of African elephants.  Let me assure you that a U.S. ban on importation will not stop the killing of elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Without the removal of elephants by U.S. hunters, others will find the need or the opportunity to kill those elephants, both for illegal and legal purposes.  Whether it is by poachers seeking to gain from the commercial value of the ivory, local residents attempting to remove a problem animal or hunters from other countries around the world taking advantage of bargain hunts not booked by U.S. hunters, elephants will continue to be removed from Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Most people who oppose hunting and importation of elephants are unaware of the role that hunting plays in fighting the greatest threat to elephant conservation—poaching.  Hunting concessions use money received from their clients to hire, feed and outfit anti-poaching patrols.  For example, few people know that it was a hunting business in Zimbabwe that discovered and helped apprehend the perpetrators of one of the most egregious poaching crimes in recent history — the poisoning of over 100 elephants in Hwange National Park.  It was a hunting business that discovered the poisoned elephants and helped finance the effort, including the use of helicopter surveillance, that resulted in the apprehension of the poachers.  In another example, a hunting business in northern Zimbabwe established the Dande Anti-Poaching Unit (DAPU) in 2014.  DAPU’s anti-poaching efforts have significantly reduced the number of illegal wildlife killings in the vicinity of the Dande Safari area.  These are just two examples of the hunting businesses who have been struggling to wage the battle against poaching, without the help of money from U.S. elephant hunters.  Without the influx of U.S. dollars to help support anti-poaching efforts, poachers will have an easier time of illegally killing elephants solely to sell the ivory for commercial gain.

Not all poaching is carried out by criminals who seek to make a profit from their ivory. Sometimes poaching – the illegal killing of an animal – is an act of necessity or frustration.  Local villages often find the need to kill elephants as to protect their livelihoods from the damages caused by elephants who roam into agricultural areas and trample crops and structures.  When elephants are not harvested by international hunters, those elephants often become the victims of retaliatory killings.  However, when elephants have significant value due to the jobs and revenue they generate for the community, local residents are far more likely to tolerate and help conserve the elephants in the vicinity – rather than kill them as nuisance animals.

Many of those opposed to U.S. importation of African elephants are unaware of the differences between hunting and poaching.  They assume that U.S. hunters care only about bringing home their “trophy.”  This misconception fails to recognize an important distinction between poachers and those who spend thousands of dollars to engage in legal hunts authorized by the country management authority.  A poacher generally kills the elephant, removes the ivory to sell it and leaves the carcass to rot.  A hunter, with aid from his professional guide or outfitter, will generally donate all the meat from the elephant to help feed local villages and communities.  Hunters and the business they bring to countries like Zimbabwe and Zambia help provide jobs for local residents as guides, cooks, drivers, etc.  Hunters often also make personal contributions to anti-poaching units and help provide financial support for community projects like the building of wells, schools etc.

Another misconception held by those who oppose the importation of legally hunted African elephants is that “more is better.”  They mistakenly assume that larger elephant populations in these countries would benefit species survival.  The truth is that, in wildlife conservation, more is not always better.  While it is true that, in some African countries, elephant populations are not as strong as they could be, that cannot be said for Zimbabwe and Zambia.  According to the recent “Great Elephant Census,” Zimbabwe’s country-wide elephant population was estimated to be 82,304.  Zambia’s elephant population was 21,758.  While the census documented a 6% decline in Zimbabwe’s elephant population since 2007, that decline did not necessarily reveal a problem for the country’s elephants.  In fact, Zimbabwe’s habitat cannot properly support a population of that number of elephants.  The country’s carrying capacity is only 50,000 elephants, according to a recent statement from Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority’s Director-General, Mr Filton Mangwanya.  Carrying capacity is the number of animals from a particular species that a region can support without environmental degradation.  Currently, Zimbabwe has an elephant population that is about 30,000 more than can be sustained by the country’s food and habitat resources.  More elephants are simply not better for elephant survival if Zimbabwe lacks the necessary resources to maintain healthy populations at that level.

Anti-hunters also believe that the U.S. alone allows individuals to import legally hunted elephants.  That simply is not the case.  Not only does the European Union and its member countries authorize importation — as do countries in Asia and South America — but so does the Convention on the International Trade of Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES), an international treaty between more than 180 nations. CITES affirms the importation of elephants and acknowledges export quotas of elephants from both Zimbabwe and Zambia.  Economically speaking, other world countries are now benefitting from the U.S.’s failure to authorize elephant imports.  With the absence of U.S. hunters, who are often willing to pay top dollar for African elephant hunts, hunters from other countries are negotiating “bargain” excursions from African guides and outfitters who must replace lost U.S. business.  While the U.S. bans importation based on irrational and erroneous conservation principles, the rest of the world is getting a great deal at U.S. hunters’ expense.

The hunting of elephants in Zimbabwe and Zambia enhances the survival of the African elephant species.  The Department of the Interior and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have carefully researched the facts, the science and the law and have concluded that the U.S. has had the necessary evidentiary support to authorize the importation of elephants from these two countries since early in 2016.  Hunters and conservationists have waited for many years for an importation decision that reflects the correct and verifiable facts about elephant importation and species conservation.  Safari Club International respectfully asks you to end the wait and to direct Secretary Zinke to begin issuing permits for the importation of these elephants, so that U.S. citizens can once again import the elephants that they legally hunt and actively participate in elephant conservation in Zimbabwe and Zambia.

Thank you.

Paul Babaz

President, Safari Club International

For more information about this subject matter, please visit the following links: Read more

Animal Rights, Hunting, Poachers, Wildlife

SCI Ushers In New Era For Hunting

Safari Club International this week took the first step in a new approach to protecting the freedom to hunt by stepping out boldly to tell the story of hunters and hunting. SCI will speak out about hunting and all the good that it does. SCI will be quick to respond when hunting is criticized. SCI will let the world know that we are proud to be hunters and proud of our contribution to conservation.

SCI was the first organization to learn of the change in U.S. Fish and Wildlife policy that now allows the importation of elephants from Zimbabwe and Zambia. SCI immediately posted a news release about this good news. Anti-hunters and news media outlets went into overdrive, attacking everyone in sight, including the Trump Administration, SCI and the National Rifle Association of America.

SCI was quick to respond with the facts. SCI President Paul Babaz took to the airwaves with media interviews, including an appearance on CNNi, where he told the story of how hunting fits into effective wildlife management to segments of society that normally do not learn about the good things SCI and hunters do around the world. He spoke from the heart and from his hunting experience. He spoke about the human side of the story where a downed elephant fed schoolchildren who had not had meat to eat in months.

“We will be more proactive and not back down,” President Babaz said, as he outlined SCI’s new communications strategy. “For me, it’s not as much about winning a debate as it is having our voices heard, being able to deliver some indisputable scientific facts, and lastly, represent all hunters as a proud hunter myself. We shouldn’t be afraid to put ourselves out there, even though they may make us look bad. We owe it to ourselves, our members and hunters worldwide to be the representatives they expect us to be.” Read more

Animal Rights
1 … 3 4 5 6 7 … 58