# Boone & Crockett: The Secret World Inside Animal Rights



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

The article is too lengthy to post here, so I am only posting part of it.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... &ref=share

HSUS Uncovered

The two most recognizable animal rights organizations are HSUS and PETA, both major multi-national conglomerate enterprises. HSUS's name, Humane Society of the United States, can easily confuse contributors into thinking HSUS is a sanctioned government organization or agency, which it is not, and that its donations go to local animal shelters. Conveniently enough, HSUS is headquartered in our Nation's Capital; hence, it has a Washington, D.C., address. To perpetuate the government connection myth, one of the leading investigators and authorities on animal rightist tactics reports that "&#8230;in the mid-1990s, HSUS partnered with the U.S. Postal Service to send out 125 million oversized postcards saying: 'Don't let your dog bite the hand that serves you!' Recipients were asked to send a donation in a self-addressed stamped business envelope to HSUS. This was clearly a colossal fundraising freebie for HSUS. However, the real gift-in addition to the cost-free mailing to 125 million prospects courtesy of the U.S. Postal Service-was the huge credibility boost, gained by the apparent alliance with a government-run agency. This tactic succeeded in further confusing the public: United States Postal Service teams up with the United States Humane Society-it wouldn't be too much of a reach to think HSUS wasn't in some way government connected."

HSUS is ruthless in using the rhetoric of its name and national image to confuse and deceive the American public to contribute to HSUS, not realizing their money is not going to local animal shelters. In 2008, HSUS made donations to pet shelter organizations in only 15 states-less than one-half of one percent of its budget.

A February 2010 national survey conducted by Opinion Research Corporation in Princeton, New Jersey, determined that 71 percent of Americans think HSUS is the national umbrella group representing thousands of local humane societies all across America, and 63 percent believed HSUS contributed most of its money to affiliated local organizations that care for cats and dogs. HSUS is ruthless in using the rhetoric of its name and national image to confuse and deceive the American public to contribute to HSUS, not realizing their money is not going to local animal shelters. In 2008, HSUS made donations to pet shelter organizations in only 15 states-less than one-half of one percent of its budget. Between 2006 and 2008, HSUS spent $277 million, yet only $6.9 million or 3 percent went to local animal shelters in 39 states. The rest, $270.1 million, was spent on litigation, lobbying, legislation, advertising, fundraising, direct mail, telemarketing, grant proposals, special events, public relations, and related programs and salaries for 555 employees with regional staffs operating in 33 states that service a reported membership and constituent base of 11.5 million. HSUS's 2009 annual report reveals HSUS has net assets of $191.9 million, $27.2 million in cash alone. Total revenues and contributions were $126.7 million. Expenditures for fundraising were $30.9 million, with an additional $5.6 million spent for fundraising support services. In 2009, 37 cents of every dollar contributed to HSUS went back out to raise more money. This led the American Institute of Philanthropy to grade HSUS "C-minus" in 2009, and in 2010 Charity Navigator downgraded HSUS' rating from four stars to three because of its fundraising. Charity Navigator also downgraded HSUS' global arm Humane Society International from three stars to one, its lowest rating.

HSUS' diverse programs have included varying tactics to spread its message such as the following:

* The passage of 121 pro-animal state laws, 26 successful ballot initiatives nationwide such as a 2008 California ballot initiative (Proposition 2) to create stringent regulations for livestock farming, which included making it illegal for farmers from any of the 50 states selling eggs in California to maintain hens in confined cages (they want enlarged "enriched cages" comparable to a free-range system);
 * Lobbying for legislation prohibiting release-bird shooting, dove hunting, bear baiting and hound hunting;
* Prohibiting the expansion of hunting and trapping on national wildlife refuges utilizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA);
* Preventing a black bear hunting season in New Jersey;
* Banning trapping in the state of Washington (Initiative 713);
* Banning pork producers in Arizona and Florida from confining sows during pregnancy in gestation pens;
* Banning greyhound racing in Massachusetts;
* Supporting a "humane farms" political action committee and ballot group in Arizona and Colorado;
* Eliminating the use of animals in biomedical or any research labs;
* Phasing out pet breeding, zoos, rodeos, horse racing and circus animal acts;
* Promoting fur-free clothing, and ending fur sales at over 100 retailers including Saks Incorporated, Bloomingdale's, Macy's, J.C. Penney Co., and Lord & Taylor;
* Demonizing hunters and trappers;
* Disseminating literature and lesson plans to grade schools with the message that animals used in medical research is "bad";
* 35,000 classrooms (more than 868,000 children) in grades K-6 monthly receive KIND News promoting the consumption of only cage-free eggs, and the message that eating meat and drinking milk causes animal cruelty, thus promoting a vegetarian diet, and stories on how children must learn to live peacefully with wildlife and not disturb or hunt animals; and
* Infiltrating unsuspecting youth groups such as the National 4-H Conference, the Youth Convention of the U.S. Equestrian Federation, etc.

One of HSUS' major programs was enabled by the 1970 Horse Protection Act and 1971 Wild Horse and Burro Act. Political agitation and litigation initiated by HSUS to compel the Bureau of Land Management to strictly interpret and implement the 1971 Act has now resulted in 37,000 feral horses and burros free-ranging in herds far larger than the carrying capacity of the land, degrading the landscapes by overgrazing and hard-packing the soil and polluting the streams across 45.96 million acres of public rangelands. Another 33,000 feral horses and burros are in 35 government-maintained corrals and pastures that cost the American taxpayer $40 million annually. That's 70,000 feral horses and burros the American taxpayer supports. In FY 2007, the federal government's budget to support this was $38.8 million. In the FY 2011 budget, that figure has risen to $75.7 million, and another $42.5 million from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) to buy land for feral horse and burro preserves in the East and Midwest.

USDA-regulated commercial horse slaughter for human consumption in America was halted by congressional mandate, driven by HSUS, forcing horses to be commercially slaughtered in Canada and Mexico by unregulated, inhumane means. American horse meat is considered a delicacy in many foreign countries. HSUS is currently lobbying Congress to prevent the export of horses from the United States for slaughter and human consumption abroad, the consequences of which may force many owners to simply abandon their injured, sick and old horses to die if they can't afford to euthanize and properly dispose of their carcasses.

For more on HSUS's activities, go to its website (http://www.hsus.org) and click on the links to "Campaigns," "Victories," Legislation," and "Legal Action." The scope of its diverse activities is both amazing and disturbing. HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle is well-versed in the importance of political access and influencing policy decisions. Animal issues are a priority for politicians in maintaining their popularity and getting votes, given the public's mainstream interest in animals; hence public association for politicians with HSUS appears to be one of Pacelle's highest priorities in Washington in maintaining and cultivating HSUS's political agenda. Pacelle proudly says, "We've turned sentiment into legislation and law." It is reported that Pacelle, while working for the Fund for Animals (now part of HSUS) proposed in 1988 merging HSUS, PETA, and the Fund for Animals, which would have really increased their combined political muscle. Moreover, HSUS engages in campaign funding backing or opposing candidates based on their animal-related voting history. HSUS even has its own accredited Humane Society University in Washington, D.C., offering bachelor's degrees in Animal Study, Animal Policy and Advocacy and Humane Leadership.

According to the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), one item you will not find on the HSUS website is its connection to people like John "J.P." Goodwin, affiliated with listed FBI eco-terrorist organizations. Goodwin, a former Animal Liberation Front (ALF) member with a lengthy criminal record and history of promoting arson to achieve animal liberation, was hired by HSUS in 1997, according to the CCF. The HSUS sent him to China on an anti-fur junket in 2000, and a year later he was identified as a HSUS legislative affairs staffer (http://www.activistcash.com). CCF continues reporting that "Goodwin himself has been arrested and convicted for being the ringleader of a gang that vandalized fur retailers in multiple states during the 1990s." The animal-rights newspaper Animal People News profiled Goodwin in 2000, noting that he "gleefully announced a string of Animal Liberation Front mink releases and arsons against furriers and fur farms" while a "spokesman" for the underground terrorist group. Goodwin also fielded press inquiries after a Petaluma, California, slaughterhouse arson in February 1997, and shocked the public with his comments on the March 1997 arson at a farmer's feed co-op in Utah. Referring to a fire that caused almost $1 million in damage and could easily have killed a family sleeping on the premises, Goodwin told The Deseret News, "We're ecstatic." J.P. Goodwin doesn't represent HSUS' only intersection with the animal rights movement's violent underbelly. Miyun Park, a Washington, D.C., anti-meat activist hired by HSUS in 2005, was acknowledged in 1999 as a financial benefactor of No Compromise magazine, a publication that supports the ALF and promotes arson and other violent tactics. In an investigation leading to the 2005 animal-enterprise terrorism trial of six SHAC (Stop Huntingdom Animal Cruelty) activists, Park was among those named in at least six federal wiretap warrants.

Animals Rightists take on Hunting

No one could have conceived that animal rights organizations could politically maneuver the British Parliament into banning fox hunting, yet in 2004 they did so, turning sentiment and emotion into public policy and legislation. HSUS President Pacelle speculated in 2004 that hunting in America, like the use of wild animals in circus acts and biomedical research, will end. Pacelle stated, "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would. Just like we would shut down all dog fighting, all cock fighting or all bull fighting." HSUS with a staff of 30 attorneys (and a network of over 1,000 pro-bono attorneys) operating in its Animal Protection Litigation Section has led much of the litigation utilizing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to force continued protection of wolves and grizzly bears from hunting, as was reported in this column in the Spring 2010 issue of Fair Chase. Moreover, they were a lead plaintiff in the case that convinced Federal District Court Judge Donald W. Molloy on August 5, 2010, to re-list the gray wolf as an endangered species in Montana, Idaho and Wyoming (even though biologically the wolves are recovered), perpetuating a case that has now been ongoing for years.

Since 1988, HSUS has been a plaintiff in 88 federal district court cases. In 2009 alone, HSUS spent $26.3 million on advocacy and public policy. However under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA), enacted during the Carter Administration, and the Judgment Fund (1956), HSUS and other animal rightists and environmental activists groups recover most of their litigation costs and attorneys' fees, so it's cost effective and beneficial for them to perpetuate litigation such as the wolf appeals. During the last decade alone, $36 million has been paid out to just nine animal and environmental activists groups alone under EAJA and the Judgment Fund in more than 3,300 lawsuits. In the Montana wolf case referenced above, in 2008 alone, HSUS petitioned the court for $388,370 in attorney's fees, and were awarded $263,099 by Judge Molloy. This represents an hourly rate of $300 notwithstanding a federal statutory cap of $125 per hour. HSUS received $280,000 in 2007 for a similar wolf case in the Great Lakes Region. This continued litigation is the vehicle HSUS and other rightists groups have used as a cause-related issue to solicit donations through massive, well-choreographed national public relations and fundraising campaigns. The con is that these groups collect twice. For example, they pursue the wolf issue in court and cover first their litigation costs under the EAJA and the Judgment Fund, gain huge publicity that supports and legitimizes their fundraising, and then second, solicit money from unsuspecting donors to "finance" the litigation already paid for with taxpayer dollars per the EAJA and the Judgment Fund. All the while, appeals in the wolf cases remain in play as they have for years, and the wolf remains a listed threatened and endangered species, their populations continue to expand, and their food source populations (deer and elk) continue to decline; hence, the animal rightists win again in protecting and expanding the wolf populations. And, they cunningly win again in their campaign to stop hunting because as the elk and deer populations dramatically decline, sportsmen have fewer and fewer animals to hunt.

Here are the statistics just for the greater Yellowstone ecosystem that covers three states where the gray wolf was reintroduced in 1995-96 as a "nonessential experimental population." The official 1987 Northern Rocky Mountain Wolf Recovery Plan provided that a sustainable population would be reached-and "recovery" assured-when three states (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) had a combined total of 300 wolves comprising 30 breeding pairs for three successive years. That objective was reached in 2002. Because of the prolonged litigation and inability of the three states to establish a hunting season (except for 2009 in Idaho and Montana), today the wolf population is 1,660-more than 5.5 times the 1987 agreed-upon limit of 300. Moreover, the animal rightist litigants are now saying in court that the 1987 limits of a sustainable population of 300 was biologically incorrect, and the number should now be 3,000 wolves.

Now translate this into the effect this expanded wolf population has had on just one state, Idaho, which has the single-largest wolf population at 835. Idaho's management unit No. 10 on the North Fork of the Clearwater, part of the famed Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, has been home to one of America's classic elk herds. In January, 1989, the elk herd totaled 11,507 animals, with 2,298 calves, 604 yearling males and a cow-calf ratio of 100 to 30. Twenty-one years later in February, 2010, the elk population has declined to 1,473 animals (87 percent decline), 144 calves (94 percent decline), 14 yearling males (98 percent decline), and a cow-calf ratio of 100 to 17 (43 percent decline). Look at the effect this has had on hunters, with the 2010 hunting season starting September 15, October 5 and 10, depending on the management unit. As of August 20, 2010, out of a quota of 12,715 available elk tags for Idaho residents, 7,421 remain unsold (58 percent). Available non-resident elk tags were 10,415, and 7,085 remain unsold (68 percent). The total non-resident whitetail deer tags available are 13,515, and 12,292 remain unsold (91 percent). Total license revenues lost by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game equal $10 million, which is 12.8 percent of the department's annual budget of $78 million. Not only has the continued wolf litigation protected and expanded the wolf population, it's dramatically taken down the elk and deer populations, reduced the incentive and number of sportsmen that want to hunt, and financially crippled the ability of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game to effectively function, thus demoralizing their ability to manage their fish and game. Idaho outfitters are being put out of business, and related support services in the rural communities like motels, gas stations, grocery and sporting goods stores are all losing critical revenue. The objective of the animal rightist's clandestine, hidden agenda over many decades is now starkly revealed. HSUS' Pacelle would say, "Mission accomplished...for now!"

The reach of HSUS is global, operating in foreign countries under a variety of subsidiary and affiliated constituent names. The HSUS infiltrates legitimate animal welfare organizations here and abroad, and either take them over or gain enough influence operationally to change the group's agenda to fit HSUS' policies. Fund for Animals, The Doris Day Animal League, Ark Trust, Cleveland Armory Black Beauty Ranch, EarthVoice International, Earthkind USA, Worldwide Network, Inc., Species Survival Network, and The World Society for the Protection of Animals are just a few classic examples of the organization's worldwide footprint, which CCF refers to as a true multinational corporation.

"Global Sanctuary System"

Another major vehicle HSUS has used to stop hunting, trapping and fishing is its Wildlife Land Trust (WLT) established in 1993 as a separate but affiliated 501(c)(3) organization, which issues its own annual report (see wildlifelandtrust.org). In 2009 alone, the WLT's revenues totaled $7 million, 17 percent of which was spent on fundraising. The trust-which HSUS calls its "global sanctuary system"-has, through outright purchase, gift, bequest or conservation easements, created wildlife sanctuaries called "Shelters Without Walls," throughout the world. Since 1993 WLT has directly established 101 permanent wildlife sanctuaries in 37 states alone, and countless more in 12 foreign countries (see map). "Collaborations," as WLT calls its partnering with like-minded humane groups and governments both in the United States and across the world, have been used to lock up countless reserves and acres WLT doesn't fully disclose other than a footnote reference to 1.8 million acres in its 2009 annual report. In Australia alone as one example, 22,487 acres are in 64 separate sanctuaries.

HSUS/WLT export their sanctuaries' agenda through playing a synergistic and catalytic role in organizing local volunteer groups. Through this role HSUS/WLT supports a specific sanctuary project, lends fundraising and organizational know-how and expertise, serves as a fiscal agent during the organizational phase of a project, providing seed money and matching grants used for outright land purchase, conservation and migration easements. Funding is also provided for biological assessments and outreach expertise, ecological and biodiversity surveys, field research and volunteer-driven assessments to establish baseline metrics, interpretive centers, hatcheries, and building rescue and rehabilitation centers. It doesn't stop there. WLT purchases cattle- and sheep-grazing permits and allotments to permanently close areas to domestic livestock, campaigns to end trophy hunting and promotes ecotourism as the alternative, and provides economic incentives to ranchers and farmers to not kill wildlife or permit others to do so on their property.

Annually individuals have applied for highly-prized permits and tags in limited harvest areas of North America for sheep, goats, elk, moose, bear and other big game, and once drawn, pay the requisite license and tag fees, but never hunt. It would be a good guess organizations like HSUS, WLT, etc. promote this practice of impounding limited harvest permits and tags quietly amongst its members. WLT's sanctuaries are closed to hunting and fishing. Livestock grazing and selective sustainable logging are also prohibited. Preserving critical habitats to create buffer zones and sanctuaries to avoid land fragmentation, and establishing migration and habitat connectivity corridors linking healthy animal populations to sustain biodiversity and ensure species survival, is the premise HSUS uses to justify these sanctuaries. However, many of the WLT sanctuaries are small, and it is difficult to understand how parcels of two, three, or five acres in size can fulfill the migration and connectivity vision. Moreover, hunting, fishing, and trapping are excluded, notwithstanding the fact that regulated harvests are recognized as a key scientific management principle of sustainability and biodiversity.


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

Good article. Boone and Crockett is right on both counts. We need to be concerned with animal rights groups, and we need to take ammo away from them and ban canned hunting by voting yes on measure two, which has been a point of the FC hunters from the begining:

CANNED SHOOT STATEMENT
The Boone and Crockett Club's Board of Directors and its membership have unanimously adopted and approved a position statement on "Canned Shoots" because of the growing concern among hunters and the increased public interest in the practice of "canned hunts."

BOONE AND CROCKETT CLUB POSITION STATEMENT
ETHICAL HUNTING VERSUS UNETHICAL SHOOTING AND OTHER PRACTICES

The Boone and Crockett Club has been a highly respected conservation leader and proponent of ethical Fair Chase hunting of North American big game since 1887.

Ethical Fair Chase Hunting
The Boone and Crockett Club, in its Fair Chase statement, advocates any hunting that is "the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of any free-ranging wild game animal in a manner that does not give the hunter an improper or unfair advantage over the game animals."

Unethical "Canned" Shooting (Improperly referred to as "canned" hunting.)
The Boone and Crockett Club condemns the pursuit and killing of any big game animal kept in or released from captivity to be killed in an artificial or bogus "hunting" situation where the game lacks the equivalent chance to escape afforded free-ranging animals, virtually assuring the shooter a certain or unrealistically favorable chance of a kill.

Genetic Manipulation of Game Animals
The Boone and Crockett Club condemns artificial and unnatural enhancement of a big game species' genetic characteristics. Unacceptable practices for genetic enhancement include, but are not limited to, artificial insemination, controlled or unnatural breeding programs, cloning, and translocation of breeding stock for canned shooting purposes.

Public Perception
The Boone and Crockett Club is greatly concerned that the non-hunting public may confuse ethical, fair chase hunting with canned shoots, genetic manipulations and other related practices, which the Club condemns.

If you have any questions, please contact:
Jayar Daily , Media Liaison
Boone and Crockett Club Headquarters

Prepared for and Adopted by the Board of Directors - June 4, 2005

HomeAbout B&C ClubB&C partnersFrequently Asked QuestionsSite MapContact Us


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

"artificial or bogus "hunting" situation."

That hits the nail right on the head.Time to shut down these places and stop calling them hunting. :thumb: :thumb:

After reading B and C statement......Difficult to understand why anyone who calls themselves a hunter would vote no.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Given the fact NDH for FC and the sponsors of this measure quote Boone and Crocket and FC consistently, given the fact that Dick Monson, sponsor, admitted thery knew HSUS would become involved, It is hard to understand why these claims they would were dismissed as "scare tactics". It is hard to understand how a group of hunters doesn not realize the door they have now opened here in our state. It is hard to understand why a group of hunters would actually defend and justify the nations leading, most effective anti hunting organization. All the while claiming it is done to "protect" hunting. Perhaps we should just let the fox guard the hen house. :eyeroll:

Archimedes. If this state has a constituitonal amendment which protects hunting as the supporters of this measure claim when dismissing HSUS anti hunting agendas as scare tactics, there is NO way these HF operations can lead to anything bad happening to hunting itself here in ND. So given that "fact" it becomes clear this is not about protecting hunting but rather an egotistical, arrogant method to force someone elses ethical beliefs, (flawed ones at that given the shooting of buffalo behind a fence was not included) onto others.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Archimedes said:


> Good article. Boone and Crockett is right on both counts. We need to be concerned with animal rights groups, and we need to take ammo away from them and ban canned hunting by voting yes on measure two, which has been a point of the FC hunters from the begining:
> 
> Archimedes, you forgot this little gem, "we need to invite them into our state with a parrallel agenda to their very own so that they can spend hundreds of thousands of dollars advertising and gaining a degree of legitimacy with the nonhunting public over an issue mosrt of the nonhunting publically never even knew existed until the sponsors started "educating them to it" as was admitted to by a sponsor". Genious plan. Partner with the ideologies of the nations number one ,most effective( that was eluded to in the B&C articcle) anti hunting org. that has MILLIONS of dollars to spend to sway voters (that was alluded to in the B&C article) in a form of creating law that is one of the favorite forms og HSUS to use in accomplishing their agenda to end ALL hunting( that was alluded to in theB&C article). I can not believe the brain trust that would believe ths is a great way to "protect" hunting or that this brain trust would actually defend HSUS being here in ND with their well known abenda (that was alluded to in the B&C article) .


----------



## Archimedes (Sep 17, 2010)

gst - animal righst groups don't just work at the state level, they also work at the federal level and with the non-hunting public to make real hunters look bad by using canned hunts as an example of all hunting. Your concern that they will affect public hunting on a state level in ND is nonsense based on our constitution. If you want to protect the reputation of hunting vote yes.....


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

TRUE Ethical Hunters see the value of having private herds in America. Without them the American Bison would be gone.It was Ranchers in SD and Montana had the foresight to breed bison, from these herds the comeback of the American Bison was secured.
The greenies should actually study history.
*
True Smart Ethical Hunters* should *VOTE NO* on measure 2.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

NDeaglei said:


> TRUE Ethical Hunters see the value of having private herds in America. Without them the American Bison would be gone.It was Ranchers in SD and Montana had the foresight to breed bison, from these herds the comeback of the American Bison was secured.
> The greenies should actually study history.
> *
> True Smart Ethical Hunters* should *VOTE NO* on measure 2.


You forget 1 thing.....there are NO buffalo in the wild that can be hunted.No way can you compare them to this type of canned shooting.

As I said....real hunters,including B and C would vote yes on this issue.


----------



## Ref (Jul 21, 2003)

Ken W. and the rest of the Fair Chase group are 100% RIGHT :beer:

Real, ethical hunters will VOTE YES ON MEASURE 2


----------



## Boonedog (Sep 10, 2006)

Ken W, there are wild bison in Alberta that can be hunted.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

KEN W said:


> You forget 1 thing.....there are NO buffalo in the wild that can be hunted.No way can you compare them to this type of canned shooting.
> 
> As I said....real hunters,including B and C would vote yes on this issue.


There are a handful of states thatdo infacthave a "wild" buffalo hunt. Are the buffalo inYellowstanewild or domestic?

The last sentences referencing "real hunters" is what is driving this whole measure, an egotistical veiw that one group can make the determination of what is a "real" hunter. Once hunting allows this to happen, hunting itself has been destroyed.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Yup....this is egotisical alright.....

"An artificial or bogus "hunting" situation." 
Can't understand that?????

Well Tuesday we will find out if the public has been snowed by the canned hunt people.You can say what you want.....it is still an artifical,bogus "hunting situation."Lets hope the public has the sense to stop this. :thumb:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ken, you have every right to have a personal opinion that this is a "bogus" type of hunting, or that it is an "artificial" form of hunting, I don't necessarily disagree with that last adjective in describing HFH. But when you try to LEGISLATE those personal opinions onto others and use groups such as the HSUS to do your dirty work for you, you are not "protecting" hunting. Answer one question, do you believe HSUS really has the best interest of FC hunting at heart as they are trying to portray in these ads??? And yet the sponsors of this measure will not accept the fact it is because of their measure this group is here in ND.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Lame reason gst.We continuously legislate persaonal opinions.Everything voted on is a personal opinion.Why is this any different?It isn't.

To answer your question.....the sponsors of this measure told the HSUS they wanted nothing to do with this.Does that mean the HSUS won't make their own ads and play them???Of course not.It's a free country and the HSUS can spend THEIR money how they want.The supporters of this measure can not control that.Another lame point.

I could make and pay for my own ads if I wanted to.So could you.Don't you think the TV stations would take my money?They sure would.And no one else can tell me I can't.Neither side has a say in that,


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"It's a free country"

Wow, KenW, this statement directly from you, yet you want to shut down these legit operations here in ND??? What kind of FREE COUNTRY do you live in? :eyeroll:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Savage260 said:


> "It's a free country"
> 
> Wow, KenW, this statement directly from you, yet you want to shut down these legit operations here in ND??? What kind of FREE COUNTRY do you live in? :eyeroll:


Wow whoever you are.....To me it's just like shutting down a house of ill repute.Some one's livelyhood.Or a strip bar.Again some one's livlehood.Guess those places are OK with you since they would have their business shut down.

The people will decide if these are legit or not.Won't they????If the majority vote yes.....bye bye canned hunting.It won't be legit anymore will it!!!

Another way to look at it istheir livelyhood will still be there.They can keep raising all the elk and deer they want.It just won't be hunting anymore.They can raise their "Livestock" the same as any cattle rancher does.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

KEN W said:


> .
> Another way to look at it istheir livelyhood will still be there.They can keep raising all the elk and deer they want.It just won't be hunting anymore.They can raise their "Livestock" the same as any cattle rancher does.


Ken W. perhaps you should read the unbiased legaly based opinion issued by the State AG's office regarding this measure and the ability of these producers to receive a "fee or renumeratio" for the "harvest" of their "farmed elk".But then again that has been a constant with the supporters of this measure make any claiims you want wether the facts back them up or not.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> And yet the sponsors of this measure will not accept the fact it is because of their measure this group is here in ND.


gst, you don't really believe that HSUS wasn't here in this state before this measure do you (that seems to be what you are implying). To claim so would be pure ignorance. They were here before this measure and will be here after regardless the outcome tomorrow. They will always be here. With the millions of dollars they have, I was surprised they only spent the little money they did. How much did the out of state HF operations contribute to oppose this measure? Unfortunately HSUS will not stop any time soon. If only there were a way to get rid of HSUS for good, I and everyone on here, I would bet, would be on it in a heartbeat.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot those of us in the cattle industry have known all along about HSUS being in this state and their agendas and how effective they have become in their methods. That is why some were claiming they would involve themselves when the sponsors of this measure opened the door for them in the manner they have. Yet people wanted to dismiss these claims as "scare tactics" Now there are here just as those acused of using "scare tactics" said they would. Even though there is an HSUS presence in ND they had little legitimacy with most NDans. Now that they are running their disingenuous ads suggesting they are concerned with protecting the hunting heritage, perhaps they have gained a little legitimacy. This is ALL a result of this measure being on the ballot here in ND. If it was not 'HSUS would not be running these ads. Show where they have bothered with spending $100,000's on a statewide ad campaign . The hunters of ND can thank NDH for FC and 4 foolish "hunters" for being the tools of the nations leading and most effective antihunting group in this country. Like I said, I wonder if this passes if Dick Monson will hang the Thank You card they get from HSUS up on the "bragging board" at the Barnes County Wildlife Club? :eyeroll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Ken show any factual proof to backup what you claim that will dismiss what the States AG's office claims regarding this measure preventing nonHF operator from selling the"harvest" of their farmed elk for a fee or renumeration.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot said,



> If only there were a way to get rid of HSUS for good, I and everyone on here, I would bet, would be on it in a heartbeat.


Without HSUS where would the fair chase committee get the funds to finance their campaign?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

"Wow whoever you are.....To me it's just like shutting down a house of ill repute.Some one's livelyhood.Or a strip bar.Again some one's livlehood.Guess those places are OK with you since they would have their business shut down."

Well, aren't you just the people's champion!!! I think your super hero tights are cutting off the circulation to your brain!

Elitist attitudes have never won any thing worth while, and I am sure they won't again tomorrow.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Savage260 said:


> "Wow whoever you are.....To me it's just like shutting down a house of ill repute.Some one's livelyhood.Or a strip bar.Again some one's livlehood.Guess those places are OK with you since they would have their business shut down."
> 
> Well, aren't you just the people's champion!!! I think your super hero tights are cutting off the circulation to your brain!
> 
> Elitist attitudes have never won any thing worth while, and I am sure they won't again tomorrow.


Why do you have to hide behind a screen name,bub??Are you afraid some one might know who you are???You apear to be dead from the neck up.

So will all you guys who post only on this forum disappear after tonight????Probably. uke:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

DG said:


> Longshot said,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DG, you keep claiming it's so doesn't make it true. You have yet to produce any evidence of such.



> So will all you guys who post only on this forum disappear after tonight????Probably


I'm sure, I haven't seen any posts outside this subject from a lot of people on here.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

KEN W said:


> Savage260 said:
> 
> 
> > "Wow whoever you are.....To me it's just like shutting down a house of ill repute.Some one's livelyhood.Or a strip bar.Again some one's livlehood.Guess those places are OK with you since they would have their business shut down."
> ...


So you display a photo of Gomer and call others dead from the head up? O' by the way the word is appear not apear. Its a poor example for a *Moderator* for this site to degrade people. 
You are showing your stripes, no ammo to defend your stance so degrade your rivals.
Only a truely worthless *Moderator *would act as you do. If all these people "dissappear" you will have nothing to do, or would that be to much like work? *Moderator?* not even close. Look up the word. A fool who thinks he has power, Perfect Fit!
I'm smiling at your posts of no substance!


----------

