AmmoLand.com

A real life David and Goliath story.

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Columbus, OH --(Ammoland.com)- A recent USA Today full-page ad went straight for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) jugular vein and decried the multimillion dollar fund raising and animal rights organization for only giving one percent of the millions of dollars it rakes in annually to actual animal shelters.

The ad, straight from an HSUS playbook with a sad looking puppy centered on the page, was sponsored by HumaneforPets.com.

That site is a subsidiary of Center for Consumer Freedom, also the owner of the HumaneWatch.org website. This is an organization that has been diligently working for years to, as they say “expose the HSUS as a fraud”.

Ad exposes the HSUS as a fraud

The Center for Consumer Freedom and HumaneforPets.com also placed the advertisement on a prominent billboard in New York City. Similar advertising messages appeared in The Washington Post, The New York Times, Variety, and the Washington, DC edition of The Wall Street Journal. There’s no doubt that the November 30, 2011 ads in national newspapers caught the attention of many, including HSUS president Wayne Pacelle.

Of course, Pacelle and the HSUS came out swinging over the bad publicity. Odd though, HSUS never denied the statement in the ad that HSUS raised more than $131 million in 2010 yet only passed one percent of that amount to animal shelters.

In his November 30 blog, (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2011/11/rick-berman-scam.html), Pacelle takes a direct stab at the head of the Washington, DC-based Center for Consumer Freedom’s Richard (Rick) Berman.

Interesting Pacelle comments (and the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance interpretations) include:

• “He (Berman) runs “charitable” organizations, like the Center for Consumer Freedom (which fights the HSUS)… yet his groups don’t feed one animal…” notes Pacelle in the direct attack.

USSA – However, nothing in Berman’s literature ever said he feeds or houses animals. Berman’s newly formed group will reportedly help house and fund animal shelters. Animal shelters, and the feeding dogs and cats, are also not listed activities reported in the 2010 IRS form 990 filed by the HSUS. Education and research are listed as HSUS activities.

• “He’s (Berman) got the mansion in McLean, Va., and the Bentley in the driveway as the spoils, with his accountant wife standing by to tally the profits,” quipped Pacelle. HSUS actually ran a picture of the guy’s home in what can only be construed as an act of desperation to show a lucrative lifestyle.

USSA – The HSUS certainly knows much about lucrative. The 2010 HSUS IRS form 990 reports that the HSUS spent more than $5.5 million on office expenses in 2010 and more than $3.5 million on travel during the 12 month period. Read it yourself at http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/financials/2010-form-990.pdf.

• Another Pacelle quote was “now, this Beltway con artist (Pacelle referring to Richard Berman) –who has probably spent as much time as anyone in recent years fighting against animal welfare–has formed a new supposed animal welfare charity. He’s calling it the “Humane Society for Shelter Pets,” blasts Pacelle.

USSA – The HSUS lobbies against the agriculture industry, hunting, trapping, dog breeders, pet stores and numerous other groups. Their lobbying efforts cost lots of money. In 2010, for example, HSUS reported spending more than $13.5 with a fundraising consultant and more than $10 million on marketing efforts to promote HSUS and its programs. More than $1.7 million was spent on legal fees by the HSUS that year alone.

• “In addition to our own full agenda of helping animals through education, advocacy, and direct care, the HSUS gives millions to other organizations. In the last five years, the HSUS has given more than $43 million in grants to other animal organizations,” reports Pacelle.

USSA – Now, the math means with annual HSUS donations received during those five years of approximately $100 million or more, the $43 million came out of a $500 million-plus cash pool at HSUS. In other words, they spent far less than 10 percent of their income helping other animal organizations.

• Finally, Pacelle’s blog questions Berman’s expenditures: “According to the most recently available federal tax filings for Berman, the Center for Consumer Freedom devoted massive financial resources—almost $1 million in 2010—to attacking animal charities, and spent an estimated $131,572 to oppose animal welfare legislation and ballot initiatives in 6 states,” Pacelle toots.

USSA – The HSUS should understand what massive really means. When you again look at the HSUS 2010 IRS 990 report, the group received more than $131 million (most from donations) and reported spending only about $4 million on program expenses. That is a real eye opener.

Those HSUS dollars and this Pacelle attack make Richard Berman out to be a real David, and his stone has struck a very BIG Goliath head.

About:
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. Visit www.ussportsmen.org.

Filed under: Conservation News, Hunting News, Shooting Industry News by Ammoland 3 Comments »

By Bill Horn, Director of Federal Affairs

U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance

Columbus, OH --(Ammoland.com)- In a controversial new policy, the Obama Administration plans to broaden the reach of the already far reaching federal Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The new policy will make it easier to list more species of fish and wildlife as “endangered or threatened” and more broadly impose the ESA’s many restrictions.

Greater limitations on fishing and hunting, wildlife management, and public land access are a likely result.

The proposed policy, released on December 9 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), see www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-12-09/pdf/2011-31782.pdf which newly interprets an old statutory term in the ESA: “a significant portion of its range,” or SPR for short.

Under the new interpretation, if a species is endangered or threatened in its SPR, it will be listed (and subject to the full range of ESA restrictions) in ALL areas where it is found even if not endangered or threatened in those other areas. The policy admits “we recognize this interpretation may lead to application of the protections of the Act in areas in which a species is not currently endangered or threatened with extinction, and in some circumstances may lead to the expenditure of resources without concomitant conservation benefits.”

Furthermore, those federal agencies admit that “application of the draft policy would result in the Services listing and protecting throughout their ranges species that previously we would not have listed, or would have listed in only portions of their ranges.”

Previously the SPR term had been regarded as a restriction on determining the existence of endangered or threatened species and the geographic scope of related ESA restrictions. In fact, when the original ESA was signed into law in 1973, that was precisely the meaning ascribed to SPR: “the term ‘significant portion of its range’ is used … to provide the Secretary with the authority to protect a [fish or wildlife] population [not the whole species] unique to some portion of the country.” The proposed Obama policy turns this intent on its head and recasts SPR as the basis for expanding species listings and the on-the-ground effect of such listings.

What does this mean to anglers and hunters?

U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is worried that it gives the anti-angling, anti-hunting animal rights lobby more ammunition to attack our community. For example, activists have been pushing hard to put sage grouse on the list of endangered or threatened species. If they can show that the grouse are “threatened” in one area (and it’s a “significant portion of its range”), then all of the grouse could be listed – and made off limits to hunting everywhere. Anglers could face similar restrictions – get a species listed because it is in trouble in one area, then it’s off-limits everywhere because “this interpretation may lead to application of the protections [and restrictions] of the Act in areas in which a species is not currently endangered or threatened.”

Besides these threats – plainly stated in the proposed policy – new rounds of litigation impacting a wide variety of fish and wildlife species are almost guaranteed. The policy opines that “Congressional intent regarding the SPR phrase is unclear” and admits that court rulings interpreting the phrase are also inconsistent. The USFWS and NMFS are plowing ahead to twist and broaden the meaning of this phrase which will spawn litigation, create more costs to taxpayers, and open more opportunities for activists, including activist judges, to call the shots on fish and wildlife management.

We shouldn’t be surprised by this action. Broader federal power, more regulations, hostility to state management of fish and wildlife, and a determination to spend more federal money (even where public benefits aren’t clear) have been hallmarks of the Obama Administration. Reinterpreting the ESA as part of its continuing federal power grab is just par for the course.

USSA has carefully read 20 pages of Federal Register fine print and will be re-reading it again to see if there are any other buried regulatory “gotchas.” Public comments can be filed by February 7, 2012, and you can be sure we will be registering our strong opposition.

About:
The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is a national association of sportsmen and sportsmen’s organizations that protects the rights of hunters, anglers and trappers in the courts, legislatures, at the ballot, in Congress and through public education programs. Visit www.ussportsmen.org.

Filed under: Conservation News, Hunting News by Ammoland 1 Comment »