Monday, January 9, 2012

The Dirty Dozen

Compliments of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance/

As 2012 begins, it’s important to take note of groups that are working against your opportunities to hunt, trap, fish and enjoy the outdoors.  I've stated many times on here how some of these organizations fool you into believing that they actually care for animals, when really all they care about is putting money in their pockets.  To that effect, here is what we call The Dirty Dozen:

1) Humane Society of the United States or HSUS—needs no commentary or introduction to hunters and trappers everywhere, but has been in the news and advertisements recently for sharing only one percent with animal shelters of the $187,515,301.00 the group raked in during 2010. Details are at

2) People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals or PETA—outrageous, radical and out of touch with mainstream America on issues related to pets, food, hunting, trapping, fishing and many other topics. PETA also promotes a vegan lifestyle and has many programs to turn children against farming, hunting, trapping, fishing and other mainstream lifestyles. This group paid legal fees for a convicted animal rights terrorist.

3) Center for Biological Diversity—the CBD makes a living suing mainly the federal government, and then recouping those fees and more. CBD strives to expand the Endangered Species Act to include hundreds of animals and plants. The group has also been involved in some seemingly tangential activities such as passing out condoms in a campaign about controlling the human population.

4) Defenders of Wildlife—works to save and increase the number of wolves, prairie dogs, and other nuisance species roaming America. But there is no doubt Defenders' main focus is their misguided effort to protect and restore wolves throughout the Lower 48 States and in Alaska. They do this without regard to the havoc caused by uncontrolled wolf populations to other wildlife such as moose, elk and mule deer. According the group’s IRS 990, Defenders’ of Wildlife collected more than $29 million in revenue in 2010, spending more than $1.5 million on more fund raising during that period.

5) American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals— ASPCA thinks hunting and trapping are cruel and should be outlawed everywhere, beginning with wildlife refuges. It advances its anti-hunting agenda by lobbying legislators, government officials and policy makers to obtain support for anti-sportsmen legislation. The ASPCA encourages grassroots activists to take part in letter writing campaigns to legislators and encourages boycotts of products tested on animals.

6) Sierra Club—Sierra Club and many of its chapters oppose access by roads to vast tracts of public lands and the group also opposes many scientific wildlife management practices. The Sierra Club’s Legal Defense Fund has frequently sued the federal government over those issues, then sought reimbursement for its legal expenses. Many of its chapters have actively opposed hunting. For example, a New Jersey Sierra Club chapter has been a leader in opposing that state’s bear hunts. The Sierra Club Grand Canyon chapter worked to end all hunting in Arizona when Proposition 109 was being considered. The Sierra Club in California opposed bear hunting with hounds. Yes, actions speak louder than words - the Sierra Club and many of its chapters are anti-hunting.

7) Friends of Animals— is opposed to deer, goose, wolf and other types of hunting according to its website information. The group has formed protests against deer management hunts in the Northeast and also formed a protest in Montana opposing wolf hunting.

8) Wild Earth Guardians—is opposed to trapping and worked to end trapping on all public lands in New Mexico, according to the group’s website. WEG also actively opposes wolf and mountain lion hunting.

9) Animal Welfare Institute—sued to stop trapping in Maine because of the Canada lynx. The AWI reports that it wants to “end the torture inflicted on furbearing animals by steel jaw leghold traps and wire snares.” The group’s website also reports that it “…wants to end cruel and irresponsible hunting and trapping, capture and killing for profit …” The group, active since 1951, produces “Trapped Animal” and “Cull of the Wild” brochures filled with sensational mistruths to present its opposition to trapping and the fur industry.

10) Animal Legal Defense Fund—opposes hunting and trapping and notes that “animals are entitled to basic legal rights in our society.” In other words, they believe a squirrel should be able to sue you for hunting it. This group’s IRS 2010 Form 990 reports revenue of more than $5 million – all to take away your outdoor heritage.

11) In Defense of Animals—worldwide organization founded in 1983 that would like to see all hunting banned. It also strongly opposes trapping and other forms of animal use based on the opinion that these acts are unduly exploiting animals.

12) International Fund for Animal Welfare—an international organization that has done considerable work to ban hunting with hounds and seal hunting. It boasts of approximately two million members worldwide, and believes “all animals and humans are linked in fate.” It first gained notoriety when it campaigned to ban Canada seal hunts.

1 comment:

  1. You nailed it. The common element for all of these organizations is that they confuse the concepts of "rights" and "welfare." Rights are a concept that only make sense for creatures who are cognizant of those rights and capable of exercising the concomitant responsibility that goes along with rights. Human beings have rights. Nothing else has demonstrated the capacity for responsibility necessary to recognize its rights.

    On the other hand, human beings - as responsible and moral creatures - have an ethical responsibility for the welfare of the animals that human beings use for their food, clothing, etc. It demeans us as responsible beings if we allow our base instincts and appetitive desires to control and overwhelm our responsiblity for the welfare of the animals we use. Animals do not have a right to force use to do something (i.e., to assert a claim against us). In Aristotelian terms, there is no perfect right by animals against human beings because such a concept is absolutely absurd and silly. A seal might as well assert a "right" not to be eaten by the orca.

    OTOH, animals do have a moral claim -- an Aristotelian imperfect right -- against humans to safeguard the welfare of animals that we use for food precisely because we are capable of moral responsiblity. We are capable of recognizing pain and suffering and morally ought to avoid unnecessarily inflicting pain and suffering on the animals we exploit for food. This imperfect right or moral claim doesn't arise from the animals themselves, but rather from us as human beings in the sense that it demeans our humanity to abuse animals unnecessarily to satisfy our baser appetites. (Xa Lynn's husband)