(Columbus, OH) –California Senate Bill 1221, a bill that will ban the use of hounds to hunt black bears and bobcats, passed the state’s Senate today. The passage of SB 1221 by the senate casts a dark cloud over the future of all hunting and wildlife management in California. Senate Bill 1221 passed with a vote of 22 to 15 in favor.

The bill, which is sponsored by the radical animal rights group Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), triggered a strong outpouring of opposition from California sportsmen and women, plus sportsmen’s organizations, in the state and nationwide. The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance (USSA) denounced this retaliatory wildlife management bill that was created when HSUS could not have a state game commissioner removed for his legal mountain lion hunt. As the bill moved forward from introduction and through the hearing process, hundreds of opponents wearing orange “NO on SB 1221” buttons also packed the corridors of the capital to let their Senators know they opposed this anti-hunting bill.

“The California Senate today chose retribution and revenge over sound science-based wildlife management,” explained Evan Heusinkveld, USSA’s director of state services. “Despite having a Fish and Game Commission explicitly designed to handle these questions free from the politics of the statehouse, the California Senate voted in favor of a hunting ban.”

USSA has been working with the Masters of Foxhounds Association, California Houndsmen for Conservation and the California Outdoor Heritage Alliance to defeat SB 1221.

Fast Facts on SB 1221

The bill would outlaw the use of hounds to hunt bears and bobcats.
Hunting bears and bobcats with hounds has been legal since the state formally organized a game commission and established game management and hunting laws.
Hounds are actually used in wildlife management practices and projects.
Hunters using hounds to pursue bears actually take fewer bears than is recommended by the state’s game department.
This bill is being pushed by the radical animal rights group—the Humane Society of the United States—the same group that has pushed anti-farming and puppy mill bills in California in the past.

From the Great Fall Tribune:

GOP Candidate for Montana Governor Robert T. Fanning, Jr.

“I am the only candidate in the 2012 race who understands and vows to honor the founders’ intent regarding the system of ‘dual sovereignty’ preserved in the U.S. Constitution,” Fanning said. “I am the only candidate who understands how rebuilding Montana’s sovereignty under the Montana Constitution can free our people from federal bondage. I am the only candidate who knows how and why it is important to return personal freedom to all Montanans. I believe Montanans can and will restore their once-proud independence and prosperity as my administration removes the federal barriers and allows the bountiful treasure which is our birthright to once again flourish.”

Yesterday in the Missoulian, republican gubernatorial candidate Rick Hill stated, “One of the things I’ve heard everywhere that I go is that the relationship today between Fish, Wildlife and Parks and landowners and sportsmen is at an all-time low.”

Should this come as a surprise to anyone? Do people think that this is something that has happened overnight? No and no! And this seemingly newly discovered phenomenon isn’t relegated to Montana. It’s an epidemic that reaches every state in this Union. Sportsmen and landowners have almost as bad an opinion of their fish and game departments as Americans do of their Congress or the presidency. And why is that?

There once was a day when fish and game departments were constructed with the idea to devise plans that would perpetuate game species so that everyone had a chance to stock up on food and/or sell animal furs to supplement or provide income. These fish and game departments originally were a direct extension of the outdoor sportsmen.

Not anymore! Fish and game departments have become giant government agencies with too many powers and a focus that caters to environmentalism and animal rights and animal protection. Along with this demented change in direction and overreaching power grab, landowners are not only losing rights to use their land as is necessary but in some cases they lose their land altogether. And with this do we really need to doubt what Hill says, that this relationship between sportsmen/landowners and fish and game is at an all-time low?

When fish and game departments functioned as a supporting entity of the sportsmen, there was also a certain degree of ownership and pride in that ownership. Are any readers old enough to remember the day when you could actually talk with a representative from a fish and game department and be treated as an equal, one with respect and an understanding of who paid whose salary? That pride of ownership kept sportsmen involved in the process. They knew their voice would be heard and when it wasn’t, fish and game personnel were out of a job.

Today, fish and game departments pretend they are interested in the sportsmen. Some even masquerade as humans who understand their role and function as that of serving the public. But don’t be fooled. They are a government organization. Governments are not any friend of the people and they certainly are not friends of sportsmen or landowners. This is because sportsmen and landowners are what stand in their way to fulfill their agendas of protecting wildlife, ridding human presence from the forests and fields, relegating us all to concrete jungles and levying control over us all. Get rid of us and they get what they want, or at least think they do.

But the problem that perpetuates this insanity is that government attempts to fix government with more government. It’s what keeps them collecting a salary. Talk is cheap. Words in this case are nothing more than campaign rhetoric, meaningless drivel to placate the masses in order to steal your vote.

Until states regain control over their environmentalism-strangled fish and game departments and change the direction and goals back to game management combined with an understanding and respect for landowners, nothing will change. Actually look for it to get worse.

The people are lazy, brainwashed robots who want government to do their bidding. Why do you think we are where we are now? Government is not the answer to government.

Tom Remington

MISSOULA, Mont. – The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today affirmed the constitutionality of Congress’ removal of wolves from the federal endangered species list.

The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation applauded the decision.

Attorneys representing RMEF and other conservation groups had presented oral arguments supporting the Congressional action, wolf delisting and science-based, state-regulated management and control of wolf populations.

“This is a huge win for real wildlife management in the U.S.,” said David Allen, RMEF president and CEO. “We’re thrilled with the favorable ruling because it upholds the law as well as science and common sense. This decision helps clear the way for continued work by true conservationists to balance wolf populations with other wildlife and human needs.”

Allen suspects the plaintiffs will appeal their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

He said, “I’m hopeful that a Congressional act, multiple courtroom defeats and an American public that is clearly tired of this legal wrangling will encourage our opponents to give up and cede responsible wolf management to conservation professionals in each state. But we’ll have to wait and see.”

RMEF continues to fight wolf lawsuits and support delisting legislation at both federal and state levels.

Okay! Here’s the topic of the day. I want to see this debated til there is no end. I’m still gathering all the information in order to write my own story, but it appears that Don Peay, founder of Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, has come out and stated that the North American Model for Wildlife Conservation is socialism and hunting needs to be privatized.

Peay, who stressed that the Utah chapter isn’t trying to push its view in Alaska or even with the Alaska chapter, said it’s time to revisit the widely accepted principle in the United States and Canada that game is a public resource. Peay described that egalitarian doctrine, found in Alaska’s state constitution and laws throughout the West, as “socialism.” It offers no economic incentive for landowners to kill predators, improve big game habitat and even provide food and water for target species.

You must read the entire article for context.

Personally, I think there is a lot of shallow thinking and ignorance surrounding this topic and the use of the word socialism has been foisted for emotional reaction, which it appears Peay has gotten.

So let’s hear it. Read the article and then let’s hear the ups and downs of a “public resource” versus “private resource”, the models in the true and intended sense and what things influence the administration of those models.

Have at it!

(Columbus, OH) –On the day before the pivotal “Super Tuesday” primaries, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum sat down for an interview with the staff leadership of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance to discuss issues important to hunters, trappers and anglers.

The USSA staff present for the interview with Santorum were: Bud Pidgeon (President and CEO); Rob Sexton (Senior Vice President); Doug Jeanneret (Vice President, Marketing); and Evan Heusinkveld (Director, State Services).

Here is the interview by issue topic:

Topic One: Hunting Recruitment and Hunting Access

Jeanneret: One of the issues facing sportsmen these days are dwindling numbers of sportsmen. It’s a really big issue. The conservation community, every national group… if you talked to any of them it’s a concern of theirs. One of the things we would like to ask you, the Department of Interior oversees U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees federal game laws. In your opinion, should they be helping us create hunters, fishermen, trappers and promoting that ethic out there?

Santorum: I hear you but I am looking at where we are from the standpoint from the deficit. I mean a lot of people ask me, where are you for federal dollars for this or that? We are borrowing 42 cents of every dollar right now and for me to commit any new dollars to do anything would be a tough thing. If you are talking about within the literature, for example that comes out, and we do things to talk about hunting and fishing opportunities… if it’s in the context of what the agency generally does and making sure that people are aware of opportunities and things like that to sort of reinforce the importance or nature of the sports. I have no problem with that. It’s different if you’re saying we need to spend new dollars to do this.

Jeanneret: We’re not.

Sexton: We’re not. The pot of money we are talking about would be excise tax dollars that come from ammunition sales, firearm sales, fishing tackle sales. That money typically gets spent back on conservation issues and sportsmen issues anyways. We are looking for some prioritization of that money to programs that will get people into the field and get them out and open up new land for them to hunt on and things like that.

Santorum: I have no problem. I mean if you are asking me if I am going to be friendly to opening up federal lands for more sportsmen activity the answer is absolutely yes. If you are talking about if we are going to take federal lands in the extent we can and turn them over to private sector or turn them over to the state the answer is yes. I think this is an opportunity for us. We have way too much federal land and way too many restrictions on the federal lands that we have. I will be working with a whole variety of different conservation groups, not environmental groups, conservation groups as well as sportsmen groups to see what avenues we can pursue to make that a much more welcoming environment for sportsmen and for recreation.

Sexton: For years our community put our money towards reestablishing species, whether it be deer or turkey or pheasant or what have you. Returning to the idea of hunters, one of the biggest factors is the urbanization of America. Guys give up hunting because they have to drive 2½ hours to get to a place to hunt. I am just bringing this around full circle so you know where we are coming from. We have used our money… the firearm tax money and the fishing tackle money. That money is supposed to be put back into the resource so that you get back more hunters and anglers. Of course they (hunters) have a huge economic impact as you know from your own home state. What we are looking for now… we want to see investment in programs so that a guy doesn’t have to drive 2 hours outside of Pittsburgh to get to hunt.

Santorum: I am okay with that as long as…you are going to find if you look at my record one of the programs I am not a fan of is CRP. I know a lot of CRP land is used for habitat but we shouldn’t be paying farmers not to farm. I mean if you want to use that money to pay farmers to keep habitat for pheasant, turkey, whatever…great, but I don’t think we should be using money that encourages farmers not to farm their land for environmental purposes. It’s not (CRP) as you know, it’s not intended for wildlife habitat. It was intended for runoff and all sorts of other things to preserve the ecology. I understand a lot of hunters and sportsmen actually feel very passionate about the CRP program. I don’t. Just being very up front with you. If you want to use the knowledge for that, that’s one thing but we shouldn’t use ­­ag (agriculture) dollars for that.

Topic Two: HR 4089, The Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012

Heusinkveld: We have a piece of legislation we have been working on in D.C. It’s called the Sportsmen’s Heritage Act of 2012. It’s a package of four different pieces of legislation. It would close legal loopholes that anti-hunters have used to shut down access to sportsmen to federal lands. It has a provision, “open until closed,” which mandates that these federal lands are open (to hunting, shooting, and fishing) until closed by the agency because they’ve got specific reason or cause or evidence that it needs to be done. The way the current law works, they (federal land management agencies) have to open every single piece of land. That opens up the opportunity to be sued by anti-hunters and animal rights groups.

Santorum: I’m for it. (referring to supporting HR 4089)

Heusinkveld: Great.

Santorum: Government should make things available unless there is a reason it shouldn’t be.

Topic Three: Dog Breeding and the Humane Society of the United States

Sexton: I think you are probably aware of a lot of the media coverage over issues of substandard dog breeding operations. There has been a 50 state campaign to address the issue but the issue has gotten out of control. The laws that are being written heavily impact folks who aren’t large breeders, but operate sporting dog kennels, hobby breeders instead of going after…

Santorum: …that’s actually why we thought about doing this at the federal level so we could get all the folks and interested parties in doing it. I mean you actually probably know I supported some of this because of it was in conjunction with a problem we were having with the importation of dogs and cats, but mostly dogs from China where there are huge, huge problems with dogs, huge amount of dogs dying in transportation and other types of problems and so that was clearly a federal government issue because it has to do with trade so this was sort of piggy backed on that bill. But it has been a chronic problem for us in Pennsylvania too in the Amish areas. It became sort of a wildfire issue for me and as far as I know they didn’t have this (state) effort, which I understand they do now, to try and take care of this in the 50 states. I know each state is dealing with it differently. But if you look at that law we put together we were very, very conscious of hobby breeders. We were very conscious of making sure we were talking about large commercial operations, not somebody that was breeding a few bitches you know every year or two.

Sexton: I think one of the concerns about the issue nationally is that the chief proponent of the overall issue was the Humane Society of the United States, who the hunting community regards as the top anti-hunting group. The bills have been written in wide funnel methodology that would… well in Pennsylvania the law they proposed would have put every sporting dog kennel out of existence. We couldn’t find even one in compliance with their proposal.

Santorum: I am not surprised by that. We dealt with both the AKC and the HSUS. There were a lot of issues that ultimately would go back and forth that we are not able to resolve and as a result probably just set them aside. You know for me this was trying to do something that was reasonable. I do believe in people’s ability to raise their own animals, but I also believe when animals go into the home as most of these animals do, you have to have consumer protection standards so you’re not having defective animals and animals that have temper problems and other types of problems coming into people’s homes. How many folks do you know that their dog is like their child? You just can’t introduce an animal into the home without having some sort of standards that are set in place.

Sexton: Are you aware of the issues between the Humane Society of the United States and the Sportsmen’s Community?

Santorum: Sure. I am very aware of it. I understand there are issues between them (HSUS) and production agriculture which is even worse than it is with the Humane Society and the sportsmen. I think you’ll find I am very reasonable guy. I do believe we should be good stewards. We have dominion over animals. We have dominion over the earth and we have to be responsible for the treatment of them. I know most sportsmen are but unfortunately there are some breeders who aren’t. As a result this is the same thing as everything else when you have people that do not live up to those conditions. Everyone else has to deal with regulations as a result of that. You can’t just turn a blind eye to it. You can’t just say well it’s too bad there are some bad people out there but too bad. I just don’t think that’s what laws are for. People keep a minimum standard for the care of and treatment of animals.

Sexton: You know you can draw a parallel when you think about it like firearms regulations and laws. We are after law breakers, not the law abiding and the same would be true on this issue.

Santorum: The concern is that we heard from some sportsmen groups and breeders that government shouldn’t be involved with us at all. Well, I don’t buy that. I mean you know if you want to police yourself…but you’re not because I can point to lots of kennels where you’re not. So if you’re not, someone is going to have to police it, otherwise you can run the videos and show the American public and you’re going to lose because no one is going to want to see animals treated like this and hear the stories that are going on. I mean, Americans loves our pets so we have to be reasonable. What I found is that vast majority of breeders are very reasonable. Some who don’t believe in any government regulation of anything and they have been out there speaking against me as I have heard in some of the states, but my feeling is we need responsible laws just make sure were hitting the irresponsible people not the responsible ones.

***Editor’s Note: The U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance is attempting to set up interviews with the remaining presidential candidates. We will provide information on their views on the most important issues to sportsmen as it becomes available.

We must somehow learn to ween ourselves from the hind teat of government. Through the indoctrination and brainwashing forcefully imposed on us from birth, we grow up always looking to government for answers to our problems. When is the last time any government agency, law or program rightfully solved anyone’s problems?

Very few states in this Union have any kind of constitutional or statute law that protects the citizens and their right to make use of the natural resources for hunting, trapping and fishing. To my knowledge, the following states have constitutional amendments that supposedly guarantee the citizens of these states the unobstructed right to hunt: Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Minnesota, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin. Nearly all of these amendments were voted on and approved by the people.

There has been a push of late for states to enshrine their rights to hunting, trapping and fishing but does such a move actually accomplish what people are led to believe it will, i.e. an actual constitutional protection, a guarantee that this right shall never be infringed?

Hunters in states like Idaho are trying to bet their guarantee on a state code. One of the difficulties not being realized by these outdoor sportsmen is that they are not looking at the entire code. It’s not necessarily that they are cherry picking or taking the code out of context, it is that I believe they are victims of exactly what the authors and signers of the code intended. In other words the code was written intentionally to confuse, while at the same time sounding as though it was accomplishing what some of the voters asked for. This is a common tactic of all untrustworthy politicians and another reason none of them can be trusted. This should also bolster the resolve that we the people should not rely on government to protect us from anything.

In Idaho, this code debate began with the announcement by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) that a “Wildlife Summit” was being planned for August of 2012.

Much of the initial outrage occurred when the sportsmen discovered that many anti-hunting, environmental, and non governmental agencies were invited to the Summit. While I certainly agree that anti-hunting and all environmental groups should have no say in fish and game management because of their agendas, whether as individuals or groups, these people do have a right to attend such a meeting.

There are other issues that surround the intent of the Summit. One of them being that some members of the IDFG Commission seem to be indicating that the goal of the Summit is to rewrite the mission of IDFG.

In an email I received from one Idaho citizen who attended a recent IDFG meeting, I was told that one member of the Commission said that these anti-hunting, non governmental organizations (NGO), have a good representation of Idaho sportsmen. The person told the commissioner that he was trying to change Idaho Code 36-103.

This may actually be true, at least from the perspective of someone working very diligently to preserve the hunting heritage of their state but the bottom line is the codes that are written and what they actually say and just as importantly how they would be interpreted in a court of law.

In many of the discussions I have read about this issue, the sportsmen seem intent on tossing out the first half of Idaho Code 36-103 , which reads:

36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.

The thrust of the focus by hunters appears to be directed at: “provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.”

This is done with disregard for the rest of the WORDS written into the code by lawyers. Before we take a bit of a closer look at this law, I’ll post here the entire statute:

36-103. Wildlife property of state — Preservation. (a) Wildlife Policy. All wildlife, including all wild animals, wild birds, and fish, within the state of Idaho, is hereby declared to be the property of the state of Idaho. It shall be preserved, protected, perpetuated, and managed. It shall be only captured or taken at such times or places, under such conditions, or by such means, or in such manner, as will preserve, protect, and perpetuate such wildlife, and provide for the citizens of this state and, as by law permitted to others, continued supplies of such wildlife for hunting, fishing and trapping.
(b) Commission to Administer Policy. Because conditions are changing and in changing affect the preservation, protection, and perpetuation of Idaho wildlife, the methods and means of administering and carrying out the state’s policy must be flexible and dependent on the ascertainment of facts which from time to time exist and fix the needs for regulation and control of fishing, hunting, trapping, and other activity relating to wildlife, and because it is inconvenient and impractical for the legislature of the state of Idaho to administer such policy, it shall be the authority, power and duty of the fish and game commission to administer and carry out the policy of the state in accordance with the provisions of the Idaho fish and game code. The commission is not authorized to change such policy but only to administer it.

Lawyers and a court of law can rip this Code to shreds and resulting rulings will leave us all wondering how that was done. While it’s easy as hunters to focus on those highlighted words above, even though the authors may have intended that to be your focus, all the other words have meaning too. To a lawyer and a judge, multiple meanings.

In brief, Part A above does not guarantee that the IDFG or the state of Idaho must grow game populations so that everyone in Idaho who wants to hunt, trap and fish can do so and for all the species in which seasons are provided. As a matter of fact, the Code says that the only time taking of game will be permitted is when there is enough wildlife to go around. However, that “taking” can be limited by any means the IDFG sees fit.

Part B then goes on to give the fish and game commission the authority to administer this code. As much as all of would love to believe the fish and game commission doesn’t have the right to “change Idaho Code 36-103″, there’s nothing really in that code that guarantees Idaho citizens a right to hunt, trap and fish. What some members of the commission might be interested in doing by inviting anti-hunting groups to the summit, is to build support to change the mission statement of IDFG.

One would think that with the intent of Idaho Code 36-103, i.e to guarantee Idaho citizens the right to hunt, trap and fish, a step up to a constitutional amendment would be an easy task. That didn’t happen though did it? Perhaps now you are getting a better understanding as to why. Who’s your friend? Who’s on your side?

My intent here was not to dissect Idaho Code but to make a broader statement and support with facts on the ground. The truth is not even a constitutional amendment guarantees outdoor sportsmen any right to hunt, fish or trap. It may be perhaps the best chance at achieving such but is far from a blank check guarantee. And for those states with some kind of statute, like Idaho, no code or statute is protected from change, especially those with an agenda.

Most amendments to constitutions are non specific. In states that have such constitutional changes, the amendment may read that the citizens of that state have a right to hunt, trap and fish and that it may go so far as to require the fish and game departments to “perpetuate” wild game for hunting opportunities for the citizens. This is so non specific it leaves the door wide open to interpretation. Forget the intent of the amendment. Intent means nothing when dealing with law makers with an agenda.

Consider the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Recently in two Supreme Court rulings it was determined that Washington, D.C. (Heller vs. District of Columbia), and Chicago (NRA vs. City of Chicago) could not prohibit citizens from owning a handgun. While the Second Amendment is suppose to guarantee American citizens a right to keep and bear arms, we see that even with a Supreme Court ruling, the citizens of Washington, D.C. and Chicago do not have a right to keep and bear arms as they wish.

The reality of it is, we deal with many things most of us are completely unaware of. In our reliance on government to protect us, we refuse to believe that our constitutions and laws will not protect us and do what we have been told they will do. Even Supreme Court rulings are not enough to force cities to comply. They would rather take their chances in more courts with more lawsuits because that’s where their friends are. Surely if the rulings of the Supreme Court mean nothing to the governments of local cities, why should we rest that our state governments care one way or the other about our rights to hunt, trap and fish?

And while you are sleeping, changes to our laws are taking place that we know nothing about. For instance, in Maine, I was researching to find out what the state statutes were regarding trapping. You can find the details here, but what I discovered was that during a federally mandated “recodification” process, your laws can and are being changed and you may not know it.

We are told by our government that recodification of all states’ laws will be done every ten years. The intent of this action is supposed to be to clear up redundancies and other issues that make deciphering and interpreting the laws clearer and easier. What I discovered was someone took this opportunity to rewrite the laws the way they wanted them done. BTW, a new round of recodification is supposed to take place in 2013. Pay attention!

With a legislature either deaf and dumb to the responsibilities of the job or in on the illegal action, it is a snap to pass these recodified laws. After all, it’s just a housekeeping measure, right?

We must stop depending on government for anything. They cannot be trusted nor will they protect you and I from anything. To stop this would be monumental because it would require a complete makeover that begins in our schools and homes. At the ballot box we can work harder at getting the right people elected but it doesn’t end there. We need watch dog groups that will follow everything each law maker does and make sure the public knows and understands. This of course will never happen because there aren’t enough people who care.

Tom Remington

(Columbus, OH) – Protection of fishing, hunting, and shooting on national forest and public lands has taken a step forward with the Senate introduction of the Recreational Fishing and Hunting Heritage and Opportunities Act. Introduced by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Joe Manchin (D-West Virginia), the measure is backed by the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, American Sportfishing Association, National Rifle Association, Safari Club International, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and others in the angling, hunting and wildlife conservation community.

The bill will protect fishing, hunting, trapping, recreational shooting and wildlife management practices on more than 400 million acres of public land across America managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. The measure mandates that these public lands are open until closed for angling, hunting and shooting while enabling the agencies to make specific closures or restrictions determined to be necessary and supported by sound facts and evidence. The bill is patterned after the 1997 National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act which made fishing and hunting “priority public uses” on federal wildlife refuge system lands and has helped protect fishing and hunting there from anti-fishing/anti-hunting zealots.

The new Senate bill also fixes loopholes created by lawsuits by anti-hunting organizations that have hampered hunting, fishing and wildlife conservation. For example, under the bill, the Forest Service can keep its public lands open for hunting and fishing even if nearby state and private lands are also open. Previously, a court had ruled that federal public lands might have to be closed if other nearby lands hosted hunters. Similarly, fish and wildlife conservation and management will remain primary purposes on BLM, Forest and Wildlife Refuge lands reversing court rulings from San Francisco. Restrictions in the 1964 Wilderness Act on motorized access, logging and other commodity uses are expressly not affected by the bill and remain in place.

Bill Horn, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Director of Federal Affairs welcomed the introduction:

“USSA deeply appreciates today’s action by Senators Murkowski and Manchin. We have been working for over a decade in support of this kind of legislation and as threats mount to fishing, hunting and shooting on public lands, the need for this bill grows. We look forward to working with the Senators and their colleagues to get this landmark measure enacted this year and ensure protection in law of our cherished angling and hunting heritage.”

American Sportfishing Association added its support:

“Recreation is the single largest economic output of national forests and grasslands, with 46.5 million anglers spending over $1.2 billion annually to enjoy recreational fishing on USFS lands,” said Gordon Robertson, Vice President of the ASA. “It is astounding that with such high demand, access is still a barrier for millions of anglers. This legislation directs the USFS and BLM managers to not only promote recreational fishing and hunting access, but to further take advantage of one of the biggest economic drivers for the agencies and the rural communities near their lands.”

The National Rifle Association offered its strong support:

“Protecting the traditions of hunting and shooting on our public lands has long been a NRA priority and the Murkowski/Manchin bill does just that. The leadership for sportsmen and sportswomen demonstrated by the two Senators will not be forgotten by us and our members,” said Susan Recce, NRA Director of Conservation.

Safari Club International also hailed the bill:

“By introducing legislation that will protect America’s hunting, shooting, and fishing community for generations to come, Senators Murkowski and Manchin have taken a much needed bi-partisan step forward. Too frequently, the hunting community is dealt lip-service, but Senator Murkowski and Senator Manchin have brought to the Senate serious legislation that will protect hunting for a generation. The companion legislation introduced in the House of Representatives is equally important to the future of hunting. On behalf of SCI and all of our partners, we would like for all members of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus to co-sponsor the ‘sportsmen endorsed’ legislation,” said President of SCI, Kevin Anderson.

Jeff Crane, President of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation added:

“The Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus has been working with the sportsmen’s community on this Act to allow Federal land planners to evaluate the impacts that management activities have on hunting, fishing and recreational shooting, and to provide a clear analysis of how proposed actions would impact access to Federal lands.”

The new Senate Bill is a companion to legislation passed by the House Natural Resources Committee 29-14. That bill, H.R. 2834, is currently awaiting a vote before the full U.S. House of Representatives.

Contacts:

USSA: Mike Faw, Director of Communications: mfaw@ussportsmen.org

ASA: Gordon Robertson, Vice President: GRobertson@asafishing.org

CSF: Frank Miniter, CSF Communcations Director: frank@sportsmenslink.org

NRA: Susan Recce, NRA Director of Conservation: srecce@nrahq.org

SCI: Nelson Freeman, media@safariclub.org

Courtesy of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance/ www.ussportsmen.org.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), through its quest to become a mainstream organization, has again resorted to “backdoor” tactics by partnering with—or possibly forcing its agenda on—the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Those HSUS efforts to infiltrate USDA regulations were recently exposed on the floor of U.S. Capital with testimony by Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kansas).

Moran noted in his Nov. 2, 2011 comments that he discovered U.S. Department of Agriculture memos authorizing the USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to hold a forum—at taxpayer expense—on animal rights and agriculture. In fact, another memorandum noted that a prior meeting with HSUS and USDA staffers was held to “set the agenda” for the upcoming forum. Moran noted in his Senate testimony that USDA met with HSUS despite it being an animal rights organization and “no friend to rural America, farmers or ranchers.”

“HSUS spends their dollars lobbying against rural America and farmers and ranchers,” stated Sen. Moran. “Tax documents show that HSUS spends less than one percent of its budget on animal shelters.”

In a March 2011 HSUS news release, the group applauded the U.S. Department of Agriculture for launching a new database to increase public access to information regarding research facilities and other entities regulated under the Animal Welfare Act. The new database came about, however, as a result of a lawsuit settlement agreement between USDA and the HSUS about access to animal research records under the Freedom of Information Act.

The HSUS had sued the USDA, and many taxpayer dollars were spent defending against the HSUS suit that was filed in 2005. Details are at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/03/usda_animal_care_records_database_032911.html. Was this an HSUS effort to gain more control over the U.S. Department of Agriculture?

Many other HSUS actions showcase their efforts to attack and infiltrate the agriculture industry.

Another September 2011 HSUS news release reveals that other groups are joining the HSUS in their costly and bitter ballet initiatives directed at farms, ranches and agriculture.

“In Ohio, in 2010, The HSUS—and many of our traditional allies such as Farm Sanctuary, Mercy For Animals, the Toledo Area Humane Society, the Ohio Environmental Stewardship Alliance, and others—waged a campaign to place a measure on the statewide ballot to phase out a variety of the most inhumane factory farming practices,” reports HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle in a blog about Ohio and farming.

The HSUS has also focused their agriculture “sights” on Nebraska.

A Sept. 14, 2011 blog by HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle decried Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman as “ill-informed and patently dishonest.” This was because the Governor held a series of meetings with ranchers and farm groups across the state to tell them that HSUS was attempting to force its way into the state and is definitely no friend to farming or the agriculture industry.

HSUS also boasted it had “…hammered out agreements in California, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Ohio on farm animal welfare….” Of course those agreements were often the results of lawsuits or threats of costly ballot initiatives by HSUS.

In May 2011, another HSUS release noted the group’s pleasure when Florida’s “lawmakers chose not to enact agribusiness’ proposal to criminalize taking photographs or videos of farm animals.” Seems HSUS videos being taken by “planted” HSUS employees at farms have appeared on television shows as documentaries or in national news programs as actual news. Yet, according to HSUS in an April 14, 2011 release, “undercover investigations of the meat industry have a long and important history in the United States.”

“All sportsmen and American’s should be concerned that the nation’s largest animal rights group has become advisors and partners to the agriculture industry,” warns Bud Pidgeon, U.S. Sportsmen Alliance president and CEO. “This group’s recent pushes to pass animal rights legislation that affects farms nationwide should be a warning of what to expect in the future—and that these recent actions by HSUS are very suspect.”

To view Senator Moran’s exposure of HSUS and its ties to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, visit You Tube at http://youtu.be/nodVyu0vIRk. Details on an HSUS undercover raid can be found at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2011/06/telly_award_smithfield_video_060911.html.