David Langston joins Joe today, and talks about all those hunting and fishing dreams you have of visiting the Rockies!
Speaking of dreams, what hunting or fishing activity do you have on your bucket list? Let us know! firstname.lastname@example.org
Today, Joe talks to Mike Avery, from the “Outdoor Magazine” television show about his latest walleye trip on the Saginaw bay.
We also talk to outdoor columnist Shawn Clark about the latest news out of the state of Wisconsin!
On this edition of The Wild U.P., Joe is joined in the studio by author Ron Spomer, from Outdoor Life, Field and Stream, the Outdoor Channel…… you get the idea!
We also break down the tragic shooting in England, and discuss the results of that country’s gun ban.
On this edition of The Wild U.P., Joe is joined in the studio by author Richard P. Smith to discuss the latest news about the Scent-Lok lawsuit. We also talk fishing with hall of fame angler Roland Martin, and then squeeze in a bit of tips and news as well!
From Deer & Deer Hunting Magazine Editor Dan Schmidt
Judge Rules Ads Were Deceptive
By Daniel E. Schmidt
Editor, Deer & Deer Hunting
Perhaps the biggest news story in the hunting industry this week is out of Minnesota, where a U.S District Court Judge issued a summary judgment that found ALS Enterprises, maker of Scent-Lok clothing and technology, liable for deceptive advertising. Also named in the suit were Cabela’s and Gander Mountain, companies that either sold Scent-Lok products or were licensees who used patents to make and market their own products.
The lawsuit is three years in the making. The suit was originally filed by three Minnesota hunters who claimed they were misled by past Scent-Lok advertising campaigns that allegedly implied the clothing completely eliminates human odor. Early reports of the judgment, if it is upheld, indicate the plaintiffs would recoup the money they spent on Scent-Lok products.
Since the news of this judgment hit the Internet, we have received numerous inquiries on the legitimacy of scent-reduction products in general. We actually reported on this specific category – activated carbon – as far back as five years ago, and included the opinions of some of the best whitetail hunters in North America.
As the editor of D&DH, I receive thousands of queries each year — be it emails, letters or phone calls — from loyal readers wanting to pick my brain on everything from ethics and hunting strategies to new hunting gear. One of the most common questions I receive centers on carbon clothing: “Does it work?” My simple answer is always a qualified, “yes.”
I started using activated-carbon clothing after sharing a camp with Minnesota’s Gary Clancy in 1995. Clancy, one of North America’s most respected whitetail hunters, said carbon clothing drastically increased his success rate. He wasn’t kidding. I’ve used activated-carbon clothing ever since and have yet to be completely “busted” by a deer’s nose.
Sure, I’ve had several occasions where deer sensed something was wrong, but instead of snorting or sprinting away, they retreated with suspicious caution. On those occasions, I’ve attributed my own sloppiness — failing to shower or spray down with scent-killing spray — to the unsuccessful encounters. Clancy and I are not alone in our belief that activated-carbon clothing is an awfully effective hunting tool.
Having chased big whitetails and black bears for more than 40 years, Michigan’s Richard Smith is one of North America’s most successful whitetail hunters. Smith achieved deer hunting celebrity status by honing his skills the old-fashioned way, but has since learned to take full advantage of modern technology. Today, he’s a firm believer in activated-carbon clothing. In fact, he won’t go hunting without it. “In most cases, I wear a (activated-carbon) hood and gloves in addition to coat and pants,” Smith said. “I sometimes also wear an under layer. I’ve experienced many situations where whitetails have not winded me when they otherwise would have. Although I still pay attention to wind direction when deer hunting, it’s not always possible to predict which way whitetails will come from, and wind direction frequently shifts direction.” Although Smith will be the first to admit carbon clothing isn’t a silver bullet, he adds, “it at least reduces the chances of deer smelling me, and that’s always a plus.”
Renowned buck-hunter Doug Below agrees. “It certainly is another weapon to use against the whitetail’s nose … or at least holds them downwind for another second or two, which may result in an opportunity for a killing shot,” Below said.
Fellow outdoor writer Steve Bartylla is another respected big-buck hunter who believes in activated carbon clothing. “A whitetail’s nose can be defeated,” Bartylla said. “However, one must think of and address every item brought into the woods with them, as well as treat their bodies and clothing. (Activated-carbon clothing) then becomes the critical and final layer of defense. Taking this approach, I am able to hunt the best stands for a given day, not the best stand for a given wind. This provides me with a tremendous advantage.” “Before carbon suits, all of my hunting clothing was washed in baking soda, dried outside and stored in containers with pine limbs,” Bartylla continued. “I showered before every trip into the woods and washed my equipment in hydrogen peroxide. After all of that, I would still get winded by around 25 percent of the deer that entered bow-range. Since incorporating (activated-carbon clothing) into my odor reduction techniques, that percentage has dropped to less than 1 percent.”
Minnesota’s Pat Reeve is another firm believer. Reeve makes his living by filming and hunting mature whitetails across the country. His successes are well documented, as are his beliefs in high-tech hunting gear. “A scent suit is not a cure-all for becoming entirely scent-free, but it’s the final step to a process that helps control your odor,” Reeve said. “The first step in the process is to wash all your clothes in scent-free detergent and store them in a scent-free environment. I also will activate my suit if I haven’t done it in a while. The next step is taking a shower, using scent-free soap and shampoo, then dressing in something other than what you’re going to hunt in. I then drive to my hunting location and dress in the field — not in the truck or at the camp house. The final step is to spray everything with scent-killing spray, making sure your boots and legs get a double dose.”
Got this great idea from the Wackmaster, Ted Nugent!
Here’s Gun Registration that works for me!
Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as well as Vermont ‘s own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.
Maslack recently proposed a bill to register “non-gun-owners” and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.
Maslack read the “militia” phrase of the Second Amendment as not only affirming the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a “monopoly of force” by the government as well as criminals.
Vermont ‘s constitution states explicitly that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State” and those persons who are “conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms” shall be required to “pay such equivalent.” Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to “any situation that may arise.”
Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver’s license number with the state. “There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so,” Maslack says.
Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with the least restrictive laws of any state .. it’s currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.
Nothing in this world tastes better than well prepared wild game!
Scott Leysath, host of the show “Hunt, Fish, Cook” on the Outdoor Channel, joins the program to give us a few pointers on preparing that wonderful venison you just filled your freezer with. Don’t miss these great tips!
By Kevin Naze – OutdoorNews.com
Menominee, Mich. – Photographs of an Upper Peninsula of Michigan island buck pole heavy with whitetail bucks that flew around Internet sites and e-mails captivated hunters across North America and sparked a debate as to their authenticity and circumstances surrounding the kills.
While the photos are indeed real, some of the claims coming from the Nov. 19 “bust” on St. Martin Island – located just inside the Michigan/Wisconsin border where Green Bay waters meet Lake Michigan – are false, officials say.
Outside of a small parcel near the lighthouse that is managed by the Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians, the approximately 21⁄4-mile-long by 11⁄4-mile-wide island is privately owned. At least two tribal hunters were involved, but the rest of the group were non-tribal hunters, and all had licenses.
There were multiple citations for tagging violations, and warden discretion kept a number of individuals from potentially getting much harsher penalties, according to the Michigan DNR.
The two photos seeing the widest circulation on hunting blogs and message boards across the World Wide Web include 31 bucks hanging on two large poles – all of the bucks are 7 points or larger – and were taken by a Michigan DNR conservation officer. They were meant to be shared only internally until the investigation was complete, but someone within the Michigan DNR leaked the photos.
“With the Internet, once something gets out, it’s gone – there’s no stopping it,” said Michigan Conservation Officer Terry Short, of Menominee.
After that happened, a member of the island camp posted another picture on a hunting site that shows more than 20 of the largest bucks along with 10 hunters, three DNR officers, and the Delta County sheriff’s deputy. Many of the hunters were smiling.
The publicity generated around the globe was a major frustration for the family of a Wisconsin businessman who owns most of the island and has had trespassing issues through the years due to its remote location about six miles northeast of Wisconsin’s Rock Island off the tip of the Door County Peninsula. It is also near the Garden Peninsula in Michigan’s Delta County.
The island’s owner has extensive Door County connections, including owning a Sister Bay business. His daughter, from Door County, said the family allowed an Upper Michigan caretaker and his friends to hunt on the island, but didn’t condone any illegal activity. She said the family had no other comment.
A long boat ride
Short wasn’t sure what to expect as he rode across bumpy seas during a 20-mile trip aboard a Delta County sheriff’s department patrol boat aimed for St. Martin Island on Nov. 19.
Acting on citizen concerns of possible illegal deer-hunting activity on the island during previous seasons, Short and two other DNR officers and a sheriff’s deputy surprised more than 20 hunters who were preparing to take their kills back to the Upper Michigan mainland.
“It was pretty incredible, pretty impressive – something you didn’t really expect,” Short said, recalling his first look at the deer that were hanging.
Two large poles held 31 bucks and nine does. Another 10 or so deer, antlers, and heads were found on the ground around the camp, mainly a mix of smaller bucks and does.
“We didn’t have any problems,” Short said. “Some of the hunters were extremely cooperative. Some wanted as little contact as possible. That’s normal.”
While the hunters had enough tags for the deer, some simply failed to tag them, Short said.
By the time the investigation was completed, 11 citations for failure to tag a deer were written, a $144 fine in Delta County District Court. Michigan allows individual counties to set their own forfeiture amounts.
Since the weather had been mild, Short was surprised that so many carcasses were still hanging on what was the fifth day of the Michigan firearms gun deer-hunting season.
“It didn’t appear they were spoiling, though,” Short said. “At least I didn’t smell anything to indicate they were.”
Short said there were “a fair number of wife and girlfriend tags” on deer, and the women weren’t on the island at the time. Officers who followed up learned that some said they were there, while some admitted they weren’t.
If those hunters would have been cited for an illegal deer in Michigan, Short said they would have had to spend five days in jail, pay $1,000 restitution for the deer and up to $1,000 in additional fines, plus loss of firearm and hunting privileges.
“That route wasn’t taken,” he said.
Provided they purchase the licenses and comply with certain restrictions, deer hunters in Michigan can shoot two antlered bucks during the firearms season. Short said tribal members are allowed two bucks and three antlerless deer, in addition to any state licenses they might buy.
Two hunters in the group were from Alaska, Short said; the rest were from Michigan. He called it “a lot of friends and family,” and believes only two were tribal members.
Short had seen some trophy buck photos from the island on the Internet in past seasons, and learned that the group was trying to manage for trophy deer. This was the year chosen to reduce the numbers, he said.
“There are people who have large tracts of land (in the U.P.) that generate bucks like these (on St. Martin),” Short said. “It can be done individually in small areas. But it’s difficult to do over a large area like the Upper Peninsula.”
Short said he didn’t know if the group made any large drives, but he did see extensive evidence that deer were being fed.
“I understand they were basically stand hunters baiting the deer in,” Short said. “The browse lines were very high. I’m not sure how they maintained that many deer. It’s likely that this winter a lot of those deer would have just died.”
A lack of predators and nowhere for the deer to go made it a unique situation, Short said. Due to the influence of wave action from Lake Michigan, the ice rarely firms up enough in winter for deer to make it to other islands or the mainland. It’s possible, he said, that some deer might swim from one island to another on occasion.
A 13-year DNR employee, Short has seen the story heat up with a lot of misinformation on the Internet. He also heard that the hunters were culling what they believed to be the smaller bucks to allow the larger ones to grow bigger bodies and racks.
Several years ago, all the bucks shot on the island reportedly weighed more than 200 pounds dressed. Many sported 10- and 12-point racks.
St. Martin Island covers about 1,250 acres and most of it is owned by the St. Martin Partnership, which is a family ownership that goes back at least three generations, according to a Michigan DNR spokesperson. About 47 acres around the lighthouse is owned by the federal government, and 36 acres is owned by David Uihlein.
Humane Society of the United States – from animalscam.com
Despite the words “humane society” on its letterhead, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. Despite the omnipresent dogs and cats in its fundraising materials, it’s not an organization that runs spay/neuter programs or takes in stray, neglected, and abused pets. And despite the common image of animal protection agencies as cash-strapped organizations dedicated to animal welfare, HSUS has become the wealthiest animal rights organization on earth.
HSUS is big, rich, and powerful, a “humane society” in name only. And while most local animal shelters are under-funded and unsung, HSUS has accumulated $113 million in assets and built a recognizable brand by capitalizing on the confusion its very name provokes. This misdirection results in an irony of which most animal lovers are unaware: HSUS raises enough money to finance animal shelters in every single state, with money to spare, yet it doesn’t operate a single one anywhere.
Instead, HSUS spends millions on programs that seek to economically cripple meat and dairy producers; eliminate the use of animals in biomedical research labs; phase out pet breeding, zoos, and circus animal acts; and demonize hunters as crazed lunatics. HSUS spends $2 million each year on travel expenses alone, just keeping its multi-national agenda going.
HSUS president Wayne Pacelle described some of his goals in 2004 for The Washington Post: “We will see the end of wild animals in circus acts … [and we’re] phasing out animals used in research. Hunting? I think you will see a steady decline in numbers.” More recently, in a June 2005 interview, Pacelle told Satya magazine that HSUS is working on “a guide to vegetarian eating, to really make the case for it.” A strict vegan himself, Pacelle added: “Reducing meat consumption can be a tremendous benefit to animals.”
Shortly after Pacelle joined HSUS in 1994, he told Animal People (an inside-the-movement watchdog newspaper) that his goal was to build “a National Rifle Association of the animal rights movement.” And now, as the organization’s leader, he’s in a position to back up his rhetoric with action. In 2005 Pacelle announced the formation of a new “Animal Protection Litigation Section” within HSUS, dedicated to “the process of researching, preparing, and prosecuting animal protection lawsuits in state and federal court.”
HSUS’s current goals have little to do with animal shelters. The group has taken aim at the traditional morning meal of bacon and eggs with a tasteless “Breakfast of Cruelty” campaign. Its newspaper op-eds demand that consumers “help make this a more humane world [by] reducing our consumption of meat and egg products.” Since its inception, HSUS has tried to limit the choices of American consumers, opposing dog breeding, conventional livestock and poultry farming, rodeos, circuses, horse racing, marine aquariums, and fur trapping.
A True Multinational Corporation
HSUS is a multinational conglomerate with ten regional offices in the United States and a special Hollywood Office that promotes and monitors the media’s coverage of animal-rights issues. It includes a huge web of organizations, affiliates, and subsidiaries. Some are nonprofit, tax-exempt “charities,” while others are for-profit taxable corporations, which don’t have to divulge anything about their financial dealings.
This unusually complex structure means that HSUS can hide expenses where the public would never think to look. For instance, one HSUS-affiliated organization called the HSUS Wildlife Land Trust collected $21.1 million between 1998 and 2003. During the same period, it spent $15.7 million on fundraising expenses, most of which directly benefited HSUS. This arrangement allowed HSUS to bury millions in direct-mail and other fundraising costs in its affiliate’s budget, giving the public (and charity watchdog groups) the false impression that its own fundraising costs were relatively low.
Until 1995 HSUS also controlled the Humane Society of Canada (HSC), which Irwin had founded four years earlier. But Irwin, who claimed to live in Canada when he set up HSC, turned out to be ineligible to run a Canadian charity (He actually lived in Maryland). Irwin’s Canadian passport was ultimately revoked and he was replaced as HSC’s executive director.
The new leader later hauled HSUS into court to answer charges that Irwin had transferred over $1 million to HSUS from the Canadian group. HSUS claimed it was to pay for HSC’s fundraising, but didn’t provide the group with the required documentation to back up the expenses. In January 1997 a Canadian judge ordered HSUS to return the money, writing: “I cannot imagine a more glaring conflict of interest or a more egregious breach of fiduciary duty. It demonstrates an overweening arrogance of a type seldom seen.”
From Animal Welfare to Animal Rights
There is an enormous difference between animal “welfare” organizations, which work for the humane treatment of animals, and animal “rights” organizations, which aim to completely end the use and ownership of animals. The former have been around for centuries; the latter emerged in the 1980s, with the rise of the radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).
The Humane Society of the United States began as an animal welfare organization. Originally called the National Humane Society, it was established in 1954 as a spin-off of the American Humane Association (AHA). Its founders wanted a slightly more radical group — the AHA did not oppose sport hunting or the use of shelter animals for biomedical research.
In 1980, HSUS officially began to change its focus from animal welfare to animal rights. After a vote was taken at the group’s San Francisco national conference, it was formally resolved that HSUS would “pursue on all fronts … the clear articulation and establishment of the rights of all animals … within the full range of American life and culture.”
In Animal Rights and Human Obligations, the published proceedings of this conference, HSUS stated unequivocally that “there is no rational basis for maintaining a moral distinction between the treatment of humans and other animals.” It’s no surprise, then, that a 2003 HSUS fundraising mailer boasted that the group has been working toward “putting an end to killing animals for nearly half a century.”
In 1986 John McArdle, then HSUS’s Director of Laboratory Animal Welfare, told Washingtonian magazine that HSUS was “definitely shifting in the direction of animal rights faster than anyone would realize from our literature.”
The group completed its animal-rights transformation during the 1990s, changing its personnel in the process. HSUS assimilated dozens of staffers from PETA and other animal-rights groups, even employing John “J.P.” Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front member and spokesman with a lengthy arrest record and a history of promoting arson to accomplish animal liberation.
The change brought more money and media attention. Hoyt explained the shift in 1991, telling National Journal, “PETA successfully stole the spotlight … Groups like ours that have plugged along with a larger staff, a larger constituency … have been ignored.” Hoyt agreed that PETA’s net effect within the animal-rights movement was to spur more moderate groups to take tougher stances in order to attract donations from the public. “Maybe.” Hoyt mused, “the time has come to say, ‘Since we haven’t been successful in getting half a loaf, let’s go for the whole thing.’”
HSUS leaders have even expressed their desire to put an end to the lifesaving biomedical research that requires the use of animals. As early as 1988 the group’s mailings demanded that the U.S. government “eliminate altogether the use of animals as research subjects.” In 1986 Washingtonian asked then-HSUS Vice-President for Laboratory Animals John McArdle about his opinion that brain-dead humans should be substituted for animals in medical research. “It may take people a while to get used to the idea,” McArdle said, “but once they do the savings in animal lives will be substantial.”
McArdle realized then what HSUS understands today — that an uncompromising, vegetarian-only, anti-medical-progress philosophy has limited appeal. At the 1984 HSUS convention, he gave his group’s members specific instructions on how to frame the issue most effectively. “Avoid the words ‘animal rights’ and ‘antivivisection’,” McArdle said. “They are too strange for the public. Never appear to be opposed to animal research. Claim that your only concern is the source of animals.”
In a 1993 letter published by the American Society for Microbiology, Dr. Patrick Cleveland of the University of California San Diego spelled out HSUS’s place in the animal-rights pantheon. “What separates the HSUS from other animal rights groups,” Cleveland wrote, “is not their philosophy of animal rights and goal of abolishing the use of animals in research, but the tactics and timetable for that abolition.” Cleveland likened it to the difference between a mugger and a con man. “They each will rob you — they use different tactics, have different timetables, but the result is the same. The con man may even criticize the mugger for using confrontational tactics and giving all thieves a bad name, but your money is still taken.”
Targeting Meat and Dairy
In 2004 HSUS promoted long-time vice president Wayne Pacelle to the position of President. Along with Pacelle’s passionate style and his experience navigating the halls of Congress, HSUS got its first strictly vegan leader.
One of Pacelle’s first acts as HSUS’s new chief executive was to send a memo to all HSUS staffers articulating his vision for the future. HSUS’s new “campaigns section,” Pacelle wrote, “will focus on farm animals.” For Americans accustomed to eating meat, eggs, and dairy foods, the thought of an animal rights group with a budget three times the size of PETA’s targeting their food choices should be unsettling. And Pacelle has hired other high-profile, unapologetic meat and dairy “abolitionists” since taking over.
In 2005, former Compassion Over Killing (COK) president Miyun Park joined HSUS as a staffer in its new “farm animals and sustainable agriculture department.” Around the same time, HSUS hired COK’s other co-founder, Paul Shapiro, as manager of its derogatorily named “Factory Farming Campaign.” COK’s former general counsel Carter Dillard shortly afterward, as did vegan doctor and mad-cow-disease scaremonger Michael Greger. Like Pacelle, these new HSUS hires are all self-described vegans. Their arrival in the world’s richest animal-rights group signals that HSUS is giving anti-meat campaigns a prominent place.
In October, just a few months before he became an HSUS staffer, Shapiro told the 2004 National Student Animal Rights Conference that “nothing is more important than promoting veganism.” And Shapiro noted during an August 2004 animal-rights seminar (hosted by United Poultry Concerns) that after just 10 weeks at the helm, Pacelle had “already implemented a ‘no animal products in the office’ policy … You know, they’re going to have actual farmed-animal campaigns now, where they’re going to be trying to legislate against gestation crates and all this stuff.”
Americans who enjoy meat, cheese, eggs, and milk may soon come to regard HSUS as a new PETA, with an even broader reach. Shortly after taking office, Pacelle announced a merger with the $20 million Fund For Animals. The combined group estimated its 2005 budget at “over $95 million” and also announced the formation of a new “political organization,” which will “allow for a more substantial investment of resources in political and lobbying activities.”
It takes tens of millions of dollars to run campaigns against so many domestic targets, and HSUS consistently misleads Americans with its fundraising efforts by hinting that it’s a “humane society” in the more conventional sense of the term. Buried deep within HSUS’s website is a disclaimer noting that the group “is not affiliated with, nor is it a parent organization for, local humane societies, animal shelters, or animal care and control agencies. These are independent organizations … HSUS does not operate or have direct control over any animal shelter.”
For instance, a 2001 member recruitment mailing called those on the HSUS mailing list “true pet lovers,” referring to unspecified work on behalf of “dogs, puppies, cats, [and] kittens.” Another recruitment mailing from that year included “Thank You,” “Happy Birthday,” and “Get Well Soon” greeting cards featuring pets such as dogs, cats, and fish. The business reply envelope lists “7 Steps to a Happier Pet.”
A 2003 recruitment mailing also included those “Steps,” as well as free address labels with pastel pictures of dogs and cats. The fundraising letter subtly substituted the animal-rights term “companion animals” for “pets.”
“Our mission is to encourage adoption in your neighborhood and throughout the country,” reads another HSUS fundraising appeal. “Even though local shelters are trying their best to save lives, they are simply overwhelmed.” That last sentence, at least, is true. But don’t count on the multi-million-dollar conglomerate HSUS to do anything about it. HSUS doesn’t operate a single animal shelter and has no hands-on contact with stray or surplus animals.
In 1995 the Washington (DC) Humane Society almost closed its animal shelter due to a budget shortfall. HSUS, which is also based in Washington, DC, ultimately withdrew an offer to build and operate a DC shelter, at its own expense, to serve as a national model.
In exchange for running the shelter, HSUS wanted three to five acres of city land and tax-exempt status for all its real estate holdings in the District of Columbia. The DC government offered a long-term lease, but that wasn’t good enough. HSUS refused to proceed unless it would “own absolutely” the land. The district declined, and what might have become the only HSUS-funded animal shelter never materialized.
So what does HSUS do with the millions it raises using the furry faces of Fido and Fluffy? In 2002, the multi-million-dollar conglomerate gave less than $150,000 to hands-on humane societies and animal shelters.
Worse, HSUS employees have complained to the press that their organization wastes its resources on fundraising expenses and high salaries for its chief executives. Robert Baker, an HSUS consultant and former chief investigator, told U.S. News & World Report: “The Humane Society should be worried about protecting animals from cruelty. It’s not doing that. The place is all about power and money.”
HSUS doesn’t save flesh-and-blood animals the way local “humane societies” do, but it does lobby heavily to change the laws of communities across the country. “HSUS was the financial clout that rammed Initiative 713, the anti-trapping measure, down our throats,” reports Rich Landers of the Spokane (WA) Spokesman-Review. “I pleaded [with Wayne Pacelle, then HSUS’s government affairs VP] at least four times for examples of HSUS commitment in Washington [state] other than introducing costly anti-hunting and anti-wildlife management initiatives. He had no immediate answer but promised to send me the list of good things HSUS does in this state. That was six months ago, and I presume Pacelle is still searching.”
Like other national animal-rights groups, HSUS has learned that pouring huge sums of money into ballot initiative campaigns can give it results normal public relations and lobbying work never could. Along with other heavy hitters like the Fund for Animals and Farm Sanctuary, HSUS scored a big victory in Florida in 2002 when a ballot initiative passed that gave constitutional rights to pregnant pigs. HSUS donated at least $50,000 to the Florida PAC that managed the campaign.
Florida farmers were banned from using “gestation crates,” usually necessary to keep sows healthy during pregnancy and to prevent them from accidentally rolling over and crushing their newborn piglets. After this amendment passed, raising pigs became economically unsustainable, and farmers were forced to slaughter their animals rather than comply with the costly new constitutional requirements. Today, Florida is considering a taxpayer-funded bailout of its few pork farmers.
Animal-rights leaders plan to extend their “pregnant pigs” win to other states, and have organized similar campaigns in California and New Jersey. HSUS’s four-year Iowa campaign, misleadingly called “Care4Iowa,” has a stated goal of promoting the so-called “humane” methods of livestock production which universally result in greater costs for farmers and higher prices for consumers.
And HSUS won’t stop at initiatives aimed at livestock farmers and trappers. At the 1996 HSUS annual meeting, Wayne Pacelle announced that the ballot initiative would be used for all manner of legislation in the future, including “companion animal issues and laboratory animal issues.” Pacelle has personally been involved in at least 22 such campaigns, 17 of which HSUS scored as victories. These operations, he said, “pay dividends and serve as a training ground for activists.”
HSUS is also a part of the Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW) coalition, a slick Washington-based PR campaign to end the “inappropriate” use of antibiotics in livestock animals. This coalition, comprised largely of science-deprived environmental groups, claims to worry deeply about antibiotic-resistant bacteria found in people. KAW doesn’t, however, devote any attention to the rampant over-prescription of the drugs to humans.
Why doesn’t HSUS want animals to receive disease-preventing antibiotics? Raising livestock without antibiotics is much more difficult and costly, and the resulting meat, eggs, and dairy are considerably more expensive. It’s possible that the KAW coalition’s goals would give Americans an economic incentive to lean toward vegetarianism; HSUS would, of course, not object.
School Activism 101
Despite a radical animal-rights agenda similar to PETA’s, the Humane Society of the United States has gained entry to countless segments of polite society. One of the more worrisome consequences of this is the group’s relatively unfettered access to U.S. schools.
Through its National Association for Humane and Environmental Education, as well as a series of animal-rights-oriented publications, HSUS spreads animal-rights propaganda to schoolchildren as young as five.
One package, titled People and Animals — A Humane Education Guide, suggests films and books for teachers to present to their students. In these recommended teaching tools, sport hunters are called “selective exterminators” and “drunken slobs” who participate in a “blood sport” and a “war on wildlife” with “maniacal attitudes toward killing.” Another teachers’ guide contains anti-circus stories in which animals are repeatedly depicted as overworked and abused.
At the same time, HSUS hypocritically complains that it is inappropriate for the federal government to distribute educational materials about the need for laboratory research animals, complaining: “These materials inappropriately target young people, who do not possess the cognitive ability to make meaningful decisions regarding highly controversial and complex issues.”
The “Humane” Web
In addition to the HSUS flagship offices in Maryland and DC, the organization’s global network includes control over the following legal corporations (this list is evolving as new information becomes available):
Alice Morgan Wright-Edith Goode Fund (DC);
Alternative Congress Trust (DC);
Animal Channel (DC);
Association Humanataria De Costa Rica;
Center for the Respect of Life and Environment (DC);
Charlotte and William Parks Foundation for Animal Welfare (DC);
Conservation Endowment Fund (see ICEC) (CA);
Earth Restoration Corps. (DC);
Earthkind Inc. (DC);
Earthkind International Inc. (DC);
Earthkind USA (DC);
Earthkind USA (MT);
Earthkind UK [ also affiliated with the International Fund for Animal Welfare];
Earthvoice International (DC);
Eating with a Conscience Campaign (DC);
HSUS Hollywood Office (formerly The Ark Trust Inc.) (CA);
Humane Society International (DC), which also operates
the International Center for Earth Concerns (ICEC) in Ojai, California,
the Center for Earth Concerns in Costa Rica, and
the Conservation Endowment Fund in California;
Humane Society International Australian Office Inc.;
Humane Society International of Latin America;
Humane Society of the United States (DE);
Humane Society of the United States (MD);
Humane Society of the United States (MT);
Humane Society of the United States (PA);
Humane Society of the United States (VT);
Humane Society of the United States California Branch Inc. (CA);
Humane Society of the United States New Jersey Branch Inc. (NJ);
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust (DC);
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust (KS);
Humane Society of the United States Wildlife Land Trust (OK);
Humane Society of the United States Utah State Branch (UT);
Humane Society University (DC);
Institute for the Study of Animal Problems (DC);
Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature (GA);
International Society for the Protection of Animals (UK);
International Wilderness Leadership Wild Foundation Inc. [d/b/a The WILD Foundation] (CA);
Kindness Club International Inc. (DC);
Meadowcreek Project Inc. (AR);
Meadowcreek Inc. (AR);
National Association for Humane and Environmental Education (DC);
National Humane Education Center (VA);
Species Survival Network (MI);
Valerie Sheppard Humane Society University (DC);
Wildlife Rehabilitation Training Center (MA);
World Federation for the Protection of Animals Inc. (DC);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (DC);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (IA);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (ND);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (VT);
World Society for the Protection of Animals – Canada;
World Society for the Protection of Animals – Deutschland;
World Society for the Protection of Animals International (UK);
World Society for the Protection of Animals UK (UK); and
Worldwide Network Inc. (DC).
The Humane Catalog (VA);
Humane Equity Fund [defunct] (DC);
Humane Society Press (DC);
Humane Society of the United States Connecticut Branch Inc. (CT);
Humane Society of the United States Virginia Branch Inc. (VA);
World Society for the Protection of Animals (MA);
World Society for the Protection of Animals – Australia;
World Society for the Protection of Animals Executor Services (UK);
World Society for the Protection of Animals Trading Company (UK).
For a more detailed look at Humane Society of the United States, including their finances and officers, visit ActivistCash.com.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, walked into a facility on Ft. Hood, armed with two semi-automatic pistols, and slaughtered a dozen of our nations finest, and wounded scores more. It was a brutal act of senseless violence. Unfortunately, it was not the first, nor the last time that this type of attack will happen. It was, however, the first time that a rampage of this magnitude has taken place at a military facility, and this illustrates one fact that can not be denied. Gun free zones are slaughter zones.
You would be hard pressed to find a more well prepared group of victims than those gunned down at Ft. Hood today. These were highly trained troops, some on their way to combat, and some on their way home from a war zone. These are people who knew how to react quickly to violence against them, and how to neutralize the threat with the minimum risk to themselves. Yet, it didn’t matter today, and here is why…the only people armed were military and civilian police, and the bad guy. Sound familiar?
The rules for carrying weapons on an Army post are the same at every base. The only people allowed to carry weapons on the base are military police. Most personnel must check their firearms daily and are only allowed to be removed from an arms room for training on a range or maintenance. All ammo is signed out and accounted for. Personal weapons must be kept locked and registered with the base provost marshal, and the military police keep a records of all weapons on a base. Essentially, Ft. Hood is a “Gun Free Zone”.
Does anyone really think that this mass murderer would have carried out the same attack at the training range? Would he have been successful if these soldiers had been carrying their service weapons? I think not. If ever there was an illustration for the need for personal protection, today’s tragedy is it.
Keep that in mind the next time some idiot tells you there is no need for individuals to carry a gun.