The Humane Society of the United States' mission is to end hunting
everywhere, and they've never been closer to realizing this goal than
they are today. Can hunters shut down their scheme?
The Muck Boots Company waded deep into a quagmire this summer and
emerged on the other side soiled, smeared, and worse for the wear. The
outdoor footwear company announced via Facebook on August 1 that the
Muck Team had raised more than $2,000 for the Humane Society of the
United States. Its customer base of farmers, ranchers, and hunters went
ballistic.
One customer identified HSUS as “the sworn enemy of hunting and the
outdoors lifestyle.” Scores more declared they would never again buy a
Muck product. A
#WhatTheMuck
hashtag lit up Twitter. When the dust settled, it turned out the
announcement was written in error—employees had intended to identify a
local animal shelter—but the damage was done.
This incident made it clear that HSUS’s anti-hunting agenda is common
knowledge within the outdoor community, and that sportsmen and women
throughout the nation refuse to support HSUS.
Which raises the question: If we are so staunchly united against
HSUS, why is this organization of antis creeping closer to shutting down
hunting?
The answer lies in the virtually inexhaustible financial resources
HSUS has at its disposal. After paying the bills, HSUS reported $195.4
million in net assets on its
2012 tax returns,
which includes nearly $178 million of investments in publicly traded
securities. That means HSUS is largely liquid—it can convert those
investments into cash essentially whenever it wants.
Those public tax documents also reveal HSUS collected nearly $113
million in contributions and grants in 2012. That’s $7.8 million more
than the previous year. HSUS capitalizes on its ability to suck up
dollars from animal-lovers who think they are donating to local pet
shelters, and it pours those donations into anti-hunting crusades.
The Humane Society of the United States reported $195.4 million in net assets on its public tax documents in 2012.
HSUS has a long list of victories against sportsmen and wildlife conservation in its ongoing battle to destroy hunting.
Today, HSUS continues to lead a multi-pronged attack against
America’s hunters. The antis are deploying their political contacts and
financial assets to strike at both state and federal levels. Current
campaigns seek to
overturn wolf hunting in Michigan;
ban lead ammunition on public lands; and
outlaw bear baiting, trapping, and hunting
with hounds in Maine. If successful, these unwarranted restrictions will cripple wildlife management and hunting as we know it.
It’s no easy feat to disable such a well-funded, well-connected, and
well-oiled political machine. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
A hunter called this black wolf in to 40 yards in Alberta last winter / Photo courtesy of Mike Faw.
Playing by the Rules in Michigan By Tony Hansen
Wayne
Pacelle,
president of HSUS, stood 10 feet from me, his tan glowing like Vegas
neon. In a moment he would step to the lectern to declare war on
Michigan hunters with another referendum aimed at overturning state wolf
management.
After delivering his speech—which claimed the wolf population was too
fragile for a “trophy hunt”—Pacelle adjusted his suit collar and strode
away to catch a jet. He was off to advance HSUS’s ultimate mission to
end hunting—species by species, state by state.
But as he delivered that 2013 speech in Lansing, Pacelle had no way
of knowing his national “charity” would suffer defeat by local hunters
rallying under their own nonprofit. HSUS reported $125.7 million in
revenue in 2012. That same year,
Michigan United Conservation Clubs—the state’s largest conservation group—brought in $1.2 million, or less than one percent of HSUS’s earnings.
At the time, I served as MUCC’s communications director, and Pacelle’s presence was no surprise. The group demanding the ban,
Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, claimed to represent local citizens who cared about wolves. But KMWP’s leader, Jill Fritz, was a paid HSUS staffer.
Michigan’s wolf population, then estimated at 658 animals, had soared
above endangered levels for more than a decade. Michigan’s wolf
management plan defined a viable population as 200 wolves for five years
in a row. HSUS lawsuits thwarted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s
attempts to delist gray wolves in the Great Lakes region in 2004, 2007,
and 2009. It wasn’t until 2011 that USFWS successfully delisted wolves
in the region.
HSUS president Wayne Pacelle / Photo by Richard Shotwell.
In 2012, USFWS transferred wolf management to Michigan. The state
legislature designated wolves as a game species and allowed hunting via
Public Act 520.
The Michigan Natural Resources Commission rolled out the
USFWS-approved management plan, which included a wolf hunt for fall
2013. Hunters harvested 22 wolves in the state’s first modern hunt—well
below the harvest quota of 43.
And that’s when it hit the fan.
The HSUS Blueprint
Outraged by the hunt, KMWP paid a California-based group $350,000 to
gather the necessary signatures to put the 2014 wolf hunt to a public
vote this November.
HSUS used this same tactic in 2006, when it spent nearly $3 million
to halt Michigan’s newly adopted dove season. Television ads appeared,
showing a hunter blasting aimlessly at birds and crippled doves in the
dirt. HSUS never confirmed if the video was authentic, despite repeated
requests from media members—including myself. The ads also said doves
are inedible and hunted solely for sport.
Deceptive as its high-dollar campaign was, HSUS won the vote by a landslide.
A woman protests Minnesota's 2012 wolf hunt / Photo by Clint Austin.
“We had heard a lot about the dove fight,” says Kent Wood, MUCC’s
former legislative affairs manager. “We knew we had to do things
differently. We had to be aggressive. We had to be smart. We couldn’t
outspend HSUS. But we could outwork and outsmart them.”
And that’s precisely what we did.
Proposal G
While the antis collected signatures, MUCC and its allies focused on a
legal solution to derail the ballot measure. Our ace in the hole was a
law passed in 1996.
Proposal G is the scar Pacelle wears on his backside from the first
time he came to Michigan, in 1995. Pacelle and the Fund for Animals
attempted to ban hounds and bait for bear hunting.
Fortunately, Prop G countered that initiative. It required that sound
science, not emotional rhetoric, guide wildlife management in Michigan.
Voters showed their approval by passing it by about 70 percent.
In 2012, Senator Tom Casperson drafted Senate Bill 288, which allows
the NRC to share authority with lawmakers in designating game species.
When passed in May 2013, SB 288 nullified HSUS’s initial bid to overturn
the game designation for wolves.
So HSUS launched a second referendum, again paying to collect enough signatures for a vote and ignoring Prop G.
“We were hearing they intended to spend $3 million to win. I heard
they had made threats to the Governor’s office about funding opponents
to run against him because he’d signed the bill,” Wood says. “Is it
true? I honestly don’t know. But I wouldn’t be surprised, because it’s
something we heard more than once from credible sources.”
Hunters fought back, creating
Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management to craft a citizen-initiated law to preserve the NRC’s authority to establish game laws.
A protestor in Minneapolis / Photo by Steve Karnowski
Since its founding in January 2013, Keep Michigan Wolves
Protected has so far received nearly $2.7 million in donations (as of
July 2014). HSUS and its lobbying arm provided $2.08 million of that, or
77 percent. In comparison, CPWM managed to raise $800,000 with help
from groups like Michigan Bear Hunters Association and Safari Club
International chapters.
CPWM gathered 374,000 signatures for the Scientific Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Act—exceeding the quota for legislative review and nearly
double what either KMWP referendum collected.
The proposal easily passed
both the House and Senate in August 2014. It should render the ballot
initiatives null and void. But it’s still too early to celebrate. As I
write this, the future of Michigan’s wolf hunt is still unknown.
An Idaho wolf hunter celebrates the harvest / Photo by Matt Moyer.
After all that, there will be no 2014 Michigan wolf season.
Lawmakers did not vote to immediately implement the act, and legal
waiting periods mean the earliest a hunt could occur is 2015, according
to DNR sources. And, following the August vote, HSUS promised a lawsuit
declaring the NRC law unconstitutional. HSUS accused hunters of using
dirty tactics and singled out Casperson for silencing voters. He sees it
differently.
“What I’m trying to take out of the hands of the public is the
ability for a misleading 30-second sound bite to determine how our
wildlife should be managed,” Casperson says. “I’m trying to protect and
uphold the will of the voters, who overwhelmingly supported Proposal G.
Michigan’s voters have already voted on this issue.”
How to Beat Them Again
So what happens when HSUS marches into a state without legislation in place to protect conservation practices?
Simple: Hunters will likely lose. Referendums are won with cash. And
in a battle of the coffers, HSUS wins. HSUS dropped millions to try to
overturn the wolf hunt, just as it’s raising millions to end bear
hunting in Maine (see below).
Yet the hunting industry generates hundreds of millions of dollars in
revenue each year. So why don’t we have a war chest to combat rampant
HSUS spending?
Surprisingly, more money might not be the answer.
“It’s not just about stockpiling money to fight them. That’s a
defensive measure,” says Nick Pinizzotto, executive director of the
U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance.
“What we need is offense. We need to focus on the fact that 70 percent
of Americans support hunting. That’s an overwhelming majority. HSUS wins
ballot initiatives with deception, lies, and cash. I’m not sure we
counter that with cash.”
Instead, Pinizzotto supports a long-term focus on maintaining and
expanding public support for hunting. As long as the fate of wildlife
management remains in the public arena, we’re going to need allies. So,
hunters: Start recruiting.
Upper:
A Montana billboard calling for an end to wolf hunting / Photo by
William Campbell. Lower: The paw of one of two Michigan wolves checked
in on opening day 2013 / Photo by
Cory Morse.
The Campaign to Scrap Lead AmmoBy Frank Miniter
HSUS is so sure it can outlaw your Core-Lokt bullets and lead shot
that it published its master plan in August 2013. It's called
“The HSUS Lead-Free Campaign: A Strategic Offensive to End Suffering and Destruction Caused by Lead Ammunition.”
The document details HSUS’s federal and state approaches, and
promises to launch public campaigns and legislative action across the
U.S. to
eradicate traditional ammo for good.
The Playbook
HSUS is relying on devious tactics to execute its outlined plan of attack.
The antis have gained ground with the public by exploiting perceived
problems with lead. This includes citing studies that record higher lead
levels among hunters who consume game and raptors that presumably feed
on gut piles. But HSUS fails to mention the lack of statistical
significance noted in such reports.
HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and Audubon California sponsored
Assembly Bill 711. Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013, the state law is on track to phase out lead ammo for hunting by 2019.
The three groups even commissioned a study on the availability of
non-lead ammo. Dr. Vernon Thomas, deemed “one of the world’s leading
experts in nontoxic ammunition” by HSUS, says non-lead ammo is readily
available.
HSUS announced the study results at the end of July—just three days
before the close of the public comment period on phasing in the ban.
“The findings should give [officials] the confidence that they can
implement AB 711 as soon as possible without disrupting hunting activity
in California,” Vernon said in the release.
But the extra expense and challenging access to non-lead ammo is sure
to disrupt hunting. It’s a clever way for HSUS to shrink the pool of
hunters.
National Shooting Sports Foundation surveys reveal 36 percent of California hunters say the ban will cause them to stop hunting or hunt less, due to increased cost.
"Thirty-six percent of California hunters say they'll stop hunting or hunt less."
And California is only the beginning. The antis are targeting other
states, and federal properties to boot. HSUS allied with 11 other
organizations—and a whopping five individual sportsmen—to petition the
Department of the Interior to ban lead ammo on federal lands. The public
land in question makes up one-fifth of the U.S.
Defensive Strategies
In response to the petition, 33 hunting, conservation, and shooting groups—including the NRA, NSSF, and QDMA—
wrote to the DOI in protest of HSUS’s petition,
saying it’s “littered with pseudo-scientific statements that attempt,
but fail, to link potential lead toxicity, from any number of possible
sources, to federal statutory obligations to protect wildlife.” HSUS
chooses studies that simply show lead can poison animals, which isn’t
the question at hand.
A
2014 study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
reported 22 of 58 dead bald eagles (38 percent) in three states
contained lethal levels of lead in their liver. Researchers speculated
these eagles might have eaten lead bullet fragments or shot from gut
piles.
“Bald eagles have been on the comeback for decades, and this small
number of found-dead birds isn’t statistically significant to their
overall population,” USFWS public-affairs specialist Sarah E. Warner
says. “We need to keep studying as we continue to learn how to best
balance humans and wildlife within our ecosystems.”
The 33 groups also noted that 95 percent of ammo used today is
“traditional ammo with lead components,” the purchase of which sends
money to conservation programs through tax revenues. The evidence
indicates wildlife populations are benefiting from lead ammo sales,
while no evidence exists to suggest wildlife populations are in danger
from the current use of lead ammo.
HSUS in Maine: Fighting Dirty to Gut Bear HuntingBy Alex Robinson
HSUS is using Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting to push another
anti-hunting initiative onto another ballot this November. If it passes,
running black bears with hounds, trapping bears, and hunting them over
bait will be banned in Maine. Bear numbers in the state have increased
by 30 percent in the last six years, but MFBH says Maine will have no
trouble managing populations without these ”cruel” methods.
This contradicts both
the findings of state biologists
and the experience of Maine sportsmen. All three gubernatorial
candidates are against the ban, and about 11,000 hunters and trappers
purchase bear permits each year.
Yet somehow, the
Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine
and its partners are still scrambling to raise money to fend off HSUS.
Although hunters have rallied, HSUS’s massive budget and cunning
political maneuvers make it impossible to predict the referendum’s
outcome.
From Children’s Books to Kesha
The battle started in May 2013, when HSUS called a meeting with David
Trahan and Don Kleiner, the executive directors of SAM and
Maine Professional Guides Association,
respectively. Kleiner and Trahan met with five HSUS representatives at
the back of the capitol building’s cafeteria. The staffers wanted to
discuss a hounding and trapping bill.
“They said, ‘We have $3 million. We have polling data that says we
can win in Maine. And if you don’t support our bill, we’re going to
submit a referendum and take away baiting, too. When we win that, we’re
going to take away all the other things you care about,’” Trahan says.
Trahan, who served as a state representative for eight years and a
state senator for four, had never before encountered such an aggressive
political strike.
“I’d call it borderline extortion,” he says. “We’re not going to be
intimidated. I’ve lived here all my life and I love my state. People
come in from out of state and think they’re going to burn everything we
care about here? They’ve got a fight on their hands.”
But MFBH is employing more than straight intimidation. The group
posted photos to Facebook of children drawing bears under the slogan “
Kids for Cubs.”
Trahan says they also hosted library readings of the children’s classic
Blueberries for Sal, which features an amiable Maine black bear.
They even recruited L.A.–born pop icon Kesha to their cause.
These tactics have gone a long way toward galvanizing sportsmen in
the region. As of press time, sportsmen had already raised about $2
million for the campaign to defend bear hunting. According to Kleiner,
it’s no secret that most of the campaign funds—on both sides—will be
pumped into television ads to air in the weeks leading up to the
election.
“Maine isn’t a rich place,” Kleiner says. “But we’ve seen a ton of
support from hunting clubs and organizations in the Northeast and around
the country. Even fishing guides are donating.”
For more info on the economic impacts of Question 1 on Maine, click here.
Help Take Down HSUS
Can hunters really turn the tide against the Humane Society of the United States? Here's how we can help take them down.
1.
Donate to the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance
2. Join local sportsmen's groups
3. Contact legislators
4.
Educate others about HSUS
5. Take a kid hunting
http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/hunting/2014/10/anti-hunting-machine-exposing-humane-society-united-states
