February 7, 2023

Money and Animals Take Precedence Over HSUS’ Women Employees

As I have iterated over the years, radical animal rights groups like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), are so perverted toward animals they would sell their souls to the Devil in order to have a relationship with an animal. Such is revealing its perverted, sick, demented, head, as the Board of Directors who voted to retain Wayne Pacelle as CEO because he made them money and his job was to protect animals.

Comments from board members include, “We didn’t hire him to be a choir boy.” “We hired him to do a good job for the animals.” And, “Our mission is to help animals, not to investigate Wayne’s allegations from years ago.”

The board voted 17-9 to retain Pacelle effectively telling the world they didn’t care one bit about the women employees of HSUS, some of whom allege that Pacelle made unwanted sexual advancements, solicited oral sex and asked one woman if he could masturbate in front of her.

HSUS has, under no uncertain terms, let everyone know that they are interested only in your money and protecting animals in the fashion of their perverted idealism.

Since the boards vote, Pacelle has resigned as CEO of HSUS stating that he must leave to keep the group of sick bastards “united.” That’s one way of looking at it, but when you consider the statements and actions of this wicked and abnormal group of animal deviants, one can only conclude that he made a deal that will drop the investigation and there will be no justice for the victims. So much for #metoo.

However, it doesn’t matter who is in charge of HSUS or sits on the board of directors, any group of people this mentally ill will simply continue doing what has profited them millions of dollars, because to them it is their priority.

And the remaining perverted animal lovers will continue pouring millions of dollars into this organization. I wonder how many of them are women?

This world is insane.


Head of HSUS Evidently Plays With More Than One Pussy

An investigation is underway into sexual harassment claims against Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States. Evidently, some women are claiming that their career successes were determined by their willingness to participate in Pacelle’s sex acts. Because of his love affair and perverse actions to animals, one can’t help but wonder what might have taken place.

Did the CEO play with more than one pussy? Did he force his partners to “do it” doggie-style and punish them if they didn’t? I’m sure with some effort I could come up with some more human/animal analogies. I’ll leave that up to you.

When you’re an ass and want to act like an ass, then he might expect to be treated like an ass.




Next Up For H(I)S(I)US: Ban Mountain Lion Hunting

*Editor’s Note* – It seems that with these extremists, like H(I)S(I)US, that the only qualifier in killing any animal is when a person’s live is threatened. HSUS makes me feel like my life is being threatened. So, now what?

In November 2018, the world’s wealthiest animal-rights organization intends to ask Arizona voters to ban mountain lion, bobcat and other big-cat hunting. Operating under the name ‘Arizonans for Wildlife,’ the campaign is really being spearheaded by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The group filed language on September 25 with the Arizona Secretary of State’s office to allow the signature-gathering process to begin in an effort to qualify the issue for the 2018 ballot. If the language is approved, the HSUS-led group would have to gather 150,642 valid voter signatures by July 5, 2018 to qualify for the election on November 6, 2018.

The language filed by the anti-hunting group would remove mountain lions and bobcats from the state’s list of huntable species. Under the proposed language, mountain lions and bobcats, along with jaguars, ocelots and lynx, would be called “wild cats,” and be prohibited from hunting or trapping.<<<Read More>>>


USFWS Director Ashe “Hearts” HSUS

*Editor’s Note* – It shouldn’t, but it does, surprise me that this hunting group evidently blindly supports the efforts of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (except when it supports the Humane Society of the United States) and can’t fathom that Director Ashe would be in support of HSUS. Historically, USFWS supports all animal rights and environmental groups. That is why, historically, previous directors of USFWS have left the agency and gone to work for animal rights and environmental groups. It’s a large rigged system in which USFWS sets the stage for environmentalists and animal rights groups to sue the USFWS, affording them the opportunity to rake in huge sums of money. Isn’t it only pay back, after high level employees of government agencies padded the environmentalist’s coffers, to get handed cushy 6-figure jobs with these quasi-governmental agencies in order to keep the gravy train going?

But don’t go look!

“In our opinion, the USFWS director should not be issuing commendations to HSUS, the nation’s most ardent anti-hunting group and a group that has worked relentlessly to limit/end hunting, scientific wildlife management and legitimate and well accepted uses of animals and wildlife. Ashe’s action is disrespectful to the millions of hunters and anglers who have been the most dedicated constituency and financial supporter of the USFWS.”<<<Read More>>>


The Turd Heads Who Score High With HSUS

There is something to be said for anyone who would receive high marks from a perverted, psychopathic group known as the Humane Society of the United States.

“As you can probably imagine, there’s a corollary between a sincere disregard for the Second Amendment and support for legislation that brings in those high marks. Senator Dianne Feinstein of California led the group with a 100-percent HSUS score. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) are all on the “perfect score” side of the HSUS ledger.”<<<Read More>>> This link provides a list of all Congressional scores from HSUS. See how your turd-headed politician scored.



Anti-bear baiting group files appeal to Maine Law Court, continues battle against DIFW

Political group Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting has filed an appeal to the Maine Law Court after the group’s lawsuit against the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife was dismissed by a Maine Superior Court justice last month.

The lawsuit, filed last year, attempted to stop the MDIF&W from spending taxpayer dollars to oppose the referendum that sought to ban bear baiting and other practices.

Source: Anti-bear baiting group files appeal to Maine Law Court, continues battle against DIFW | State & Capitol


HSUS Wants To Shut Up Maine DIFW

Most in Maine already know that the Humane Society of the United States has filed a lawsuit and is demanding an emergency injunction to stop the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and the Maine Wardens Service from speaking out against the referendum proposed by the HSUS to end bear hunting.

Old Hunter says:



$2.6 Million Anonymous Donors Fund HSUS

“According to the tax return of the Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF)—HSUS’s lobbying arm—a mere two anonymous donors provided 50% of the organization’s funds in 2012. Those two donors provided $2.6 million to fund HSLF’s rabid attack campaign during the election season. (Members of Congress have already written the IRS about HSUS’s potentially excessive lobbying, but HSLF is a separate group that is allowed to do more political activity.)”<<<Read More>>>


Maine Woman Member of ASPCA Not Happy About Anti Hunting Stance

From the Bangor Daily News, a woman, a member of the local ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) is not happy to learn that the ASPCA is supporting the Humane Society of the United State’s anti-bear hunting referendum that, if passed, would stop bear hunting with bait, with dogs and also ban trapping.

Recently, I discovered a percentage of my donations are also applied to another cause ASPCA endorses. This cause is anti-hunting.

ASPCA endorses laws to stop hunting of bear, moose, coyotes, etc. This is not what I expected my donation to support. I support structured hunting 100 percent. Without it, animal control would be out of control. The bear referendum currently on the table is endorsed by ASPCA.


Rhetorical Nonsense From Anti Bear Hunters

There were a couple of editorial comments found in the Bangor Daily News on March 13 where a certain explanation should be made concerning opinions and rhetoric.

The first opinion comment said that if the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife(MDIFW) thinks “to feed them [bear] jelly doughnuts, have dogs treeing them, and use traps” is scientific, then he would have to question MDIFW’s “science or lack of same.”

I suppose depending upon a person’s definition of “scientific”, I don’t think Randy Cross (MDIFW bear biologist) or anyone else at the department thinks there is much “science” in how bears get harvested; no more than the “science” behind how deer or moose or any other game animal gets harvested. How the harvest takes place is through the selection of tools, combined with public safety assessments, needed to keep a population of game species within healthy and manageable numbers. Determining what the healthy populations in specific regions of the state, aided by all of the ongoing bear studies and those from other education and research facilities, is SCIENCE!

The second opinionated comment is nothing more than rhetorical parroting rooted in ignorance. First was this opinion, of which the author is certainly entitled to: “cruel, unsporting, unnecessary practices of baiting, trapping and hounding.” Most people do not agree with this statement.

The rest are merely lies that cannot be substantiated and mostly founded in lies being perpetuated by media and the head of this upcoming referendum, the Humane Society of the United States.

The lies are:

1. “How can anyone believe that leaving a 300-pound bear stuck in a 2½-inch ankle snare for a day of extreme pain is acceptable?”
Answer: This person is completely ignorant of anything to do with trapping a bear.

2. “…that letting a pack of dogs attack a mama bear and her cubs is acceptable?”
Answer: This person is completely ignorant of anything to do with bear hunting with hounds.

3. “When bear baiting was banned in Washington, Oregon and Colorado, the bear population stabilized.”
Answer: Not true. This is unproven and unsubstantiated claims made by the anti bear hunting zealots in those regions. The truth is that now that a considerable amount of time has elapsed since the banning of hounds, bear numbers are growing and is posing problems in certain areas. These problems come and go depending upon circumstances on the ground, i.e. weather, availability of natural food, etc. There exist similar problems now with mountain lions after hounding of lions was banned.

4. “Interestingly, in Maine, the bear population began to increase shortly after bear baiting began.”
Answer: False! Once upon a time, the black bear in Maine was considered nothing more than a nuisance. In fact, for many years, even dating back to the 1700s, bounties were readily paid to hunters and trappers for killing as many bears as they could. These bounties lasted in some regions until as late as the 1940s, perhaps 1950s. It was after the establishment of a state fish and game department and the decision to begin seeing bears as a game animal, did the population of bears begin to increase.

Today, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife conducts extensive bear studies and has become the envy of many in North America. I believe that if this person did a little work instead of repeating the nonsense they have been told, they would also discover that it was a point in bear management that the MDIFW realized there were getting to be too many bears. (Note to the first commenter: MDIFW used science to determine there were too many bears and how many presented problems.) It was not too long after that baiting bears was implemented for the purpose of increasing the bear harvest in order to keep bears healthy in their habitats and not become a problem socially, i.e. public safety.

5. “A diet of doughnuts, pizza and grease fattens female bears, leading to more cubs in the den.”
Answer: Not true. As I have requested from others who make such claims, “Show me the science.” There is none. There are many theories but science has never been able to prove this claim about the specificity of effects on bears from eating donuts. The fact is, if there are any natural effects on bears in contributing the how many cubs will be born, the number of influencing factors are so great, no one item can be held accountable for any of the claims being made about baiting bears.

Besides, if there are 35,000 estimated bears in Maine, and that number is more than likely a low estimate, how many of those bears are the recipients of Dunkin’ Donuts?

6. “this type of junk-food diet can cause bears’ teeth to rot.”
Answer: Let’s see the science on this, where a few days out of the year, eating junk food causes teeth to rot in bears.

Another fallacy that I’m surprised this writer did not bring up when writing about how bear populations “stabilized” out West. That is the lie about how the number of bear hunting licenses increased. The lie being perpetuated here is that prior to the banning of bear hounding, there was not a single “bear hunting license.” With the new law the fish and game agencies created a new “bear hunting license.” Therefore, the number of bear hunting license sales did increase from zero to how ever many licenses were sold. But let’s not let facts get in the way of a good hateful, un-American agenda.

I’d like to end this article by bringing your attention back to the second opinion writer’s comment about Gandhi: “in Mahatma Gandhi’s words: “The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.””

I am assuming this person finds this nation’s way of treating our animals as unacceptable from their perspective of what “moral progress” is. And just exactly how, in their weak minds, should animals be treated?

I would also like to point out something that a man, whom many people think was a great man, perhaps a greater man than Gandhi in some people’s eyes, did as a statesman and representative of the United States while abroad many years ago.

Thomas Jefferson was tasked with traveling to Europe to find business and trade partners after the Revolutionary War. As he traveled from town to town seeking reliable, decent, trustworthy and yes, perhaps even “moral[ly] progress[ive]” people, he had a routine before attempting to conduct any business with residents of any town he went to in which he had never been.

Jefferson would scope the town to seek out the highest vantage point; often a church steeple. He would climb to the top and survey the village and the landscape. Once he accomplished that, he would walk about the village observing the people going about their normal, everyday routines.

And with all of this, I suppose in much the same way as Gandhi stood judge and jury over a nation by how it treated it’s animals, Jefferson had a judgement of his own in which he never varied from. If he determined any town was mostly full of people who treated their animals better than the humans, he left that town refusing to engage in any business with them on the conclusion that such people were of poor character and unreliable.

Do you suppose Gandhi and Jefferson would have gotten along?