October 17, 2021

HSUS Whistle Blower Tells All

Share

HSUS: “Hollow, One-Dimensional Ideologues and the Unbridled Cynicism”

V. Paul Reynolds, in his weekly column in the Sun Journal, shares his perspective on the State of Maine dealing with the Humane Society of the United States. In part he says:

There can be only one explanation for HSUS’s strategy, notwithstanding its stunning gall and apparent contempt for Maine’s way of life. Policymakers in this organization have determined that they can eventually wear us down, that we, sportsmen and outfitters, will run out of money before they do. And they may be right.

Never mind ethics. Never mind integrity. Never mind fair play. Never mind the public will. Winning is all that counts, so spend money willfully and wear down the opposition. Bury it with piles of greenbacks! Buy a victory. To hell with what the people want. Impose your values on those who don’t see it your way. Shove it down their provincial throats!

BearAndNoose

Share

HSUS Bent on Maine Outfitter Destruction?

RossLakeCamps

Share

HSUS Declares Maine Bear Hunting a Target in 2016

Press Release from the U.S. Sportsman’s Alliance:

Just months after a resounding defeat by Maine voters, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has announced plans to bring yet another ballot issue on bear hunting back to Maine.

On Tuesday, Feb. 24, lawyers for HSUS and the state of Maine were in court to debate the lawsuit brought by HSUS against the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife. That suit sought to stop the state’s wildlife experts from explaining to voters the true dangers of HSUS’s bear hunting ban. Despite an overwhelming decision by Maine Superior Court Justice Joyce Wheeler that sided with the state’s right to provide comments, HSUS continues to pursue a legal challenge.

As part of the discussions about the pending litigation, an attorney for HSUS, Rachel Wertheimer, advised the court that they will again put the question on the 2016 ballot, and will be filing the initial paperwork soon.

“I guess we shouldn’t be surprised that these guys will stop at nothing to pursue their radical, anti-hunting agenda,” said Nick Pinizzotto, USSA president and CEO. “They spent more than $2.5 million dollars trying to buy an election. When it was clear they were about to lose, they sued the state to prevent the true experts from explaining the dangers of the issue to voters. And now they are making it crystal clear that they do not respect the will of the voters – who have twice sent HSUS and their allies packing.”

In November, voters rejected the bear hunting ban (Question 1) by a 53.6 to 46.3 percent margin, just as they did in 2004 – the last time HSUS brought the issue to Maine.

“How many times are we going to have to debate this? They’ve lost before the legislature, they’ve lost at the ballot box, and they’ve lost in the courts,” Pinizzotto continued. “This is nothing more than a direct look straight into the heart of the anti-hunting movement, a movement that will obviously stop at nothing to accomplish their agenda.”

Share

PETA Kills 88% of Dogs and Cats

Here we go again. A report filed by Infowars, states that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) killed 88% of the dogs and cats they had taken in to “care for.”

PETA is a puke because they are lying hypocrites. As the article points out PETA hauls in millions of dollars, over $51 million last year, by promoting no animal killing and for “ethical” treatment of animals. (Ethics is what you do when nobody is looking, right? Ooops! Somebody peeked.)

So, here is where I am going to have everybody hating me. PETA supposedly took in 2,626 pets last year and killed 88% of them. Good for them. This country is overrun with dogs and cats. Oh yes, some people take very good care of their pets, yada, yada, yada but far too many people don’t. If people really loved their pets, they would do more to make sure that we aren’t overrun with nasty, rotten, disease-ridden pets. But they don’t. As a matter of fact, it is because of organizations like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States, that there are so many pets to begin with.

Let’s get rid of a few hundred thousands and better control and take care of the ones we have.

Share

HSUS Will “Accept” a “Threatened” Classification for Wolves

This is the leading paragraph in a news story found in the Star Tribune:

Animal protection and environmental advocates in Minnesota and nationally have informed federal regulators that they would accept a reduced level of protection for wolves in order to avert a congressional effort to remove all protections for the species.

<<<Read More>>>

I do understand that these are words of the reporter and author of the article and not directly those of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) or any other environmentalist group. However, the question I would like to ask is who in the hell does the HSUS think they are that they can TELL federal regulators what they will and will not accept? Who died and left them in charge of all things environmental.

The message I would have for HSUS I will not put to print…thank you.

Isn’t it just a bit too late? This move is an obvious sign that the environmentalists are running scared envisioning an act of Congress that would spoil their party. Too bad and too late! You pushed and you pushed and you pushed. Always demanding and taking more. NEVER GIVING! Now it is time to pay the fiddler.

I am not an advocate of managing wildlife with politics but I am hoping that Congress comes down hard on this issue and not only prevents wolves from any longer being needlessly protected but takes away their gravy train of lawsuits. Color me vindictive.

Perhaps the chickens are headed toward the roost in the hen house.

Share

Where Did Humane Society of the U.S.’s $509 Million Go?

Share

Maine Ethics Commission Wants Transparency to End Bear Baiting

In reading an article in the Bangor Daily News, the article attempts to report that the Maine Ethics Commission wants more “transparency” when it comes to efforts by any government agency in the state participating in political activities. At issue here is the backlash from a lawsuit filed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), in the middle of a campaign to end bear hunting, to try to stop the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife (MDIFW) from participating against the referendum.

The result of the lawsuit was that it was legal for MDIFW to do what they were doing. However, the Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting, a fake coalition that was comprised only of HSUS members, asked the Maine Ethics Commission to investigate. And so they did but didn’t have to.

The Ethics Commission is trying very hard here to paint themselves as investing the “ethics” of actions by the MDIFW because they did not disclose all associated costs of the campaign to the liking of the commission. But from what is written in this article, I have serious doubts that the Commission is all that interested in transparency as they are about ending the practice of allowing any government representative to participate in such future campaigns.

It seems really stupid to prohibit government departments, as a form and function of the greater administration, to silence their position on political events such as was the case with the bear referendum. Don’t the people want to know where an administration stands in such matters? One might understand the request that the MDIFW reveal all associated costs to participate in this campaign, under the laws of the state. The appearance of trying to hide something gets us into the function of an ethics panel. However, it seems to me the Ethics Commission is taking on the role of strong-arming the MDIFW by proposing legislation that would prohibit the practice of participation. This goes beyond any kind of transparency request about funding and delves into issues in which one would have to wonder if the Ethics Commission needs an ethics commission to investigate what they are doing.

It certainly appears to me that in a 4-1 vote, the commission is more interested in ending bear hunting during the next useless anti-human bear referendum that comes up, than anything much related to transparency.

Share

Great Lakes Wolves Returned to Federal Protection

ORDERED that the defendants’ and defendant-intervenor’s Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment are DENIED; and it is further

ORDERED that, because the rule Revising the Listing of the Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) in the Western Great Lakes (the “Final Rule”), 76 Fed. Reg. 81,666 (Dec. 28, 2011), is arbitrary and capricious and violates the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et seq., the Final Rule is VACATED and SET ASIDE; and it is further

ORDERED that the rule in effect prior to the Final Rule vacated by this Order, namely, the rule regarding Reclassification of the Gray Wolf in the United States and Mexico, with Determination of Critical Habitat in Michigan and Minnesota, 43 Fed. Reg. 9607 (Mar. 9, 1978), is REINSTATED to govern management of gray wolves in the nine states affected by the vacated Final Rule, pursuant to the Endangered Species Act

<<<Copy of the Complete Ruling>>>

Share

Who’s Getting Fat From HSUS Donations?

FatteningUp

Share