Truth About HSUS Revealed Again

The Humane Society of the United States is not what you think


By: Ron Arnold 12/02/10 8:05 PM
Wahington Examiner
OpEd Contributor

If you donate to the Humane Society of the United States for supporting the homeless doggies and kitties in your local animal shelter, you've likely been suckered by one of Big Green's most notorious propaganda mills.

HSUS is a radical no-meat, anti-hunting, anti-gun octopus that spends millions swallowing other animal groups whole, but habitually gives less than 1 percent of its annual revenue to a few selected local shelters. It's not that they can't afford it -- they raked in $101.6 million last year alone.

HSUS got so big because of CEO Wayne Pacelle's takeovers of the extremist Fund for Animals and the respectable Doris Day Animal League, in what he calls "corporate combinations."

That, and his ability to create high-profile projects like disaster relief crews that swoop stranded cats and dogs from flooded housetops while the TV cameras watch -- then quietly dump them on nearby shelters without so much as a dime's worth of support.

Pacelle gets the credit, the grunts get the critters.    Read More

There are more people every day that are learning the truth about the HSUS.  While they continue to claim that they aren’t anti-meat or anti-ag, one only has to look at their suggested recipes to see what their true goals are.  That’s where the rubber meats the road.  But while we have made great strides in exposing this group we must continue to do more.  There are still too many people that think this group actually cares for pets.  Nothing could be further from the truth. 

Animal Friends Advocate Violent Death For Deer

Group: Use coyotes, not hunters to cut deer population


Published: Tuesday, October 19, 2010
DailyLocal.com

VALLEY FORGE — An animal-rights group that opposes the use of hunters to cut the deer population in Valley Forge National Historical Park wants officials to consider using coyotes instead.

The Pennsylvania chapter of Friends of Animals opposes a plan to use sharpshooters to eliminate more than 80 percent of the park's deer in the next four years. Last year, the group filed a lawsuit seeking to stop the hunts.

Now, the group has started a campaign called the Coyote Coexistence Initiative. The group wants park officials to consider encouraging natural predators rather than shooting the deer.

Park officials say the proposal wouldn't work.

Friends of Animals says it will seek an injunction to stop a hunt planned for next month. According the Friends of Animals' Web site, attempts to control coyote populations through trapping and killing have been futile and "an ethically and scientifically sound strategy that focuses on empowering people to respect coyotes" is preferable.

"Education and outreach designed to inform the public about the role of feeding in coyote attacks is an integral part of coexistence programs already in place and those currently being developed," the group's Web site says. "Coyote education campaigns can demonstrate practical ways to avoid unwanted incidents — by, for example, making coyote deterrents using household items."     Read More

Let’s see if I can get this straight.  The Friends of Animals group would rather have predators chasing and harassing a deer until it finally dies a very slow and painful death than have sharpshooters quickly harvest the deer and use the meat to feed the homeless.  With friends like that who needs enemies??  Not only would this be a tremendous waste of resources, but it would also lead to an eventual problem with coyotes as well.  With their plan, what happens to the coyotes if and when they would lower the deer population?  They either start starving to death or die off from disease.  It’s another great example of people with no knowledge or experience dealing with managing natural resources trying to make recommendations that cause more harm than good. 

Supporting Right-to-Hunt Laws

Hodge: Right to hunt, fish amendment needed


By Bob Hodge
Knoxnews.com
Sunday, September 12, 2010

It's an interesting tactic anti-hunting groups are taking when it comes to states considering right-to-hunt-and-fish amendments to their constitutions: they are trying to kill them with disinterest.

When Tennesseans go to the polls Nov. 2 the state's right-to-hunt-and-fish amendment will be on the ballot. For the amendment to become part of the state constitution it will need 50 percent of the total number of votes in the gubernatorial race plus one. Three other states - Arkansas, Arizona and South Carolina - have similar referendums this year.

Animal rights groups are out and about saying "What's the point?"

"It's a solution in search of a problem," said Michael Markarian, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. "These measures don't accomplish anything."

The better-known and more rabid People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals also had a take on Tennessee's amendment.

"All these amendments are a solution in search of a problem," Ashley Byrne of PETA told the Tennessean. "If people have a right to hunt, why not a right to shop or golf?"

Of course, while Markarian says there's no problem, the president of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, has his group actively fighting Arizona's amendment, called Proposition 109. In Arizona, HSUA has joined up with the Sierra Club and the Animal Defense League to try and defeat the amendment.     Read More

Animal rights groups most certainly have hunting and fishing restrictions or outright elimination as their goals. We’ve learned it’s important to get ahead of them with common sense legislation that will hopefully protect these honored and necessary traditions.

Wisconsin DNR Partners With HSUS

Paul Smith Outdoors Editor
DNR steps on toes with partnership
Posted: May 12, 2010 (30) Comments

Spring has sprung and the 2010 class of wild ones is appearing on the Wisconsin landscape.
As it has for years, the Department of Natural Resources is reminding state residents not to pick up young wildlife, such as fawns and bunnies.

The animals may appear to be orphaned, but they are most often just fine, with a doe (the word for female deer and rabbits) nearby.

And if uninjured, they always fare better outdoors than when taken in by a human. We tend to provide inadequate or even toxic food, to say nothing of the implications of a wild animal imprinted on humans.

You've likely heard the message before, but you've never heard it like this: To spread the word this year, the DNR has partnered with a frequent opponent on hunting and wildlife management issues - the Humane Society of the United States.

The DNR and the HSUS have teamed to produce and buy air time across the state for a pair of 30-second radio spots.

The spots feature a young female voice which asks the public to respect the wild nature of wildlife. If an animal is truly injured or orphaned, have an adult contact the DNR, she instructs.
But it's the partnership, not the message, that's drawing the most attention.

"My initial reaction was shock and disbelief," said George Meyer, executive director of the Wisconsin Wildlife Federation and former DNR secretary. "If I hadn't seen it on the DNR's Web site, I would have thought it was a hoax."

Meyer said while there is value in communicating with all groups, partnering with the HSUS is a step too far. Read More

The strategy of the HSUS is simple. They try extremely hard to project a mainstream image and brush off any radical labels thrown their way. Yet at the same time, their actions tell a different story. Wisconsin residents should be extremely worried that they have bought their way into the DNR office. Proper management of wildlife is extremely important and if it was up to the HSUS they would end the most effective measures for management, which is through hunting. One look at the recipe section of their website says all you need to know about this group. There certainly aren’t any wild game recipes to be found.

MT Looks To Reduce Wolf Numbers

Mont. aims to reduce wolf numbers for first time
By MATT VOLZ (AP) – 16 hours ago

HELENA, Mont. — Montana wildlife commissioners approved a plan Thursday that aims to reduce the gray wolf population for the first time since the once-endangered animal was reintroduced to the region 15 years ago.

The proposal approved by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission calls for at least doubling the number of wolves that hunters can kill and introducing an archery season to go with the rifle season.

The population of wolves in the northern Rockies has increased every year since they were reintroduced to the region in 1995 after being nearly wiped out in the last century due to conflicts with humans and loss of habitat.

There were at least 524 wolves in Montana at the end of last year, and 1,706 wolves in the combined northern Rockies region of Montana, Idaho, Wyoming and parts of Washington and Oregon, wildlife officials estimate.

Ranchers and hunters say the wolf population has now grown too high, which has led to more attacks on livestock and game. Read More

Wildlife management is essential for the health of the wildlife involved. I’ve shared with you before about what happens if humans don’t manage these populations. When those numbers get too high, Mother Nature causes them to starve to death or unleashes devastating diseases that wipe out significant portions of them. That certainly doesn’t appear to be the humane option to me. Along with that, human safety and that of our domesticated animals needs to always be a priority in this equation. No wolf is worth a human life. Keeping a viable controlled population needs to be the goal.

Sunstein Nomination Vote Today

Cass Sunstein latest target for the anti-‘czar’ bunch
By Matthew Shaer 09.09.09

The same critics that successfully lobbied for the resignation of White House adviser Van Jones are now attacking Cass Sunstein, a prominent legal scholar and a professor at Harvard Law School. In January, the White House confirmed that Sunstein was in line to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, which oversees privacy, information, and regulatory policy.

At the time, Sunstein was lauded by many conservatives, including the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

But in recent weeks, the appointment has come under heavy fire. One of the most outspoken Sunstein opponents is Glenn Beck, who spearheaded the drive to oust Van Jones. Using his hit Fox News show as a platform, Beck has excoriated Sunstein for — among other perceived sins — leftist views on animal rights, hunting, gun control, and economic policy. Read More

Cass Sunstein has made it quite clear in the past that he does not like hunting and that he believes that animals should be able to sue people. The position that he has been nominated for is considered the most powerful position in Washington DC that no one has ever heard of before. The Senate is expected to vote on this today so it’s important that you contact your Senators and let them know that we don’t need someone like Sunstein that believes animals should have the same rights as you do in America’s courts.