By Glen Wunderlich

A controversial black rhino hunt is set to be auctioned by the Dallas Safari Club (DSC) on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Namibia.  Fueled by typical emotion-driven rhetoric, the usual suspects, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), oppose the hunt on the grounds that the animals are endangered.  On the other side, conservationists and biological scientists support the auction as a means to brighten the future of the prized African game species.

First a few facts are in order.  The number one reason for the decline from around a million rhinos in the year 1800 to approximately 30,000 today is poaching.  Rhino horn is one of the mainstays of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and thus has been responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of rhinos.  The question is not whether rhino horn actually has medicinal value; enough Asians believe it does, and therefore, its value is literally double that of gold.

Namibia’s Ministry of Environment and Tourism (MET) was established in 1990 and is responsible for the safeguarding Namibia’s environmental resources.  Since 2004, with the support of scientists in the international Convention on Trade in Endangered Species, Namibia is authorized to sell up to five hunting permits a year. With selective hunting as a part of its comprehensive rhino conservation strategy, the country’s black rhino population has more than doubled since 1990.

DSC expects the permit to sell for at least $250,000, perhaps up to $1 million. All proceeds will be returned to Namibia for underfunded rhino-related projects such as anti-poaching patrols.

Did you catch that?  All proceeds are to be returned to Namibia.

Contrast this with how HSUS uses its questionable tactics to line the pockets of its hierarchy.

HSUS CEO, Wayne Pacelle, raked in $395,000 in total compensation according to its latest tax return. In total, 38 people received over $100,000 in compensation from HSUS—up from 24 the previous year. HSUS put $2.9 million into its pension plan—significantly more than it made in paltry grants to support pet sheltering.

So, rather than paint the DSC with the same brush used on poachers, while lining its own pockets, wouldn’t it be philanthropic if HSUS leaders invested that money in anti-poaching efforts or in efforts to reduce the demand for rhino horns?  (That’s Wayne’s argument against the DSC, by the way, directly from his blog.) Read more

From MUCC…
The coalition supporting the Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act will be holding launch events over the next few weeks. In addition to events in the Upper Peninsula and Oakland, Macomb and Washtenaw Counties, additional launch events will be added across the state where people can learn about the citizen initiative and take home petitions to circulate. MUCC is part of the coalition, called Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management, that is supporting the Scientific Fish & Wildlife Conservation Act. Read more

HSUS spent $50 million on fundraising-related expenses—41% of its budget. In other words, HSUS is a “factory fundraiser,” and the people really making the money are the fundraising contractors.

• HSUS put $2.9 million into its pension plan—significantly more than it made in grants to support pet sheltering.
• HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle pulled in $395,000 in total compensation.
• HSUS paid $7.4 million to Quadriga Art, a fundraising firm that two states investigated last year after it was exposed by CNN in connection with charity scams. Quadriga was HSUS’s second-largest independent contractor in 2012 and HSUS has paid $30 million to Quadriga over the past several years.
• In total, 38 people received over $100,000 in compensation from HSUS—up from 24 the previous year. For as much as HSUS complains about Big Ag, this “non-profit” corporation is clearly Big Animal Rights.
• HSUS just had a ritzy gala in New York City last month. According to the tax return, HSUS lost money on these glitzy events in 2012. Between the NYC gala and the Hollywood “Genesis Awards” last year, HSUS had a net loss of $350,000.
• HSUS claims it helped pass or defeat 132 laws in 2012. We’ve never heard of a nonprofit—which is not supposed to engage in much lobbying—that has such a high count when it comes to influencing laws.
• HSUS’s membership magazine only goes to 545,000 people—up only 15,000 from last year. HSUS claims to represent a “constituency” of 11 million people (whatever that means), but the magazine circulation provides a good idea of HSUS’s actual membership—about 22 times smaller than HSUS’s claimed “constituency.”
• HSUS’s contributions ticked up a little after a drop last year, but they’re still below where they were in 2010 (when we started this website).
• HSUS admits that “a large portion of The HSUS’s work on direct care and service is accomplished through affiliated entities such as the Fund for Animals.” The Fund for Animals has its own separate fundraising. Shouldn’t HSUS make this fact clear in its own fundraising? Why is HSUS taking the credit for this animal care?