Archive

Posts Tagged ‘hunting’

Humane Society of the United States – (HSUS) Poll Shows Donors Still In The Dark

May 16, 2012 1 comment

“We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

~Wayne Pacelle

Humane Society Of The United States President

 

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark – HumaneWatch

Link to HumaneWatch

SHOCK POLL: 90 Percent of HSUS Donors Are in the Dark

Posted: 16 May 2012 05:34 AM PDT

We’ve already established through public polling that the vast majority of Americans—you know, the regular folks who are the targets of HSUS’s disclaimer-less, deceptive TV ads—mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter umbrella group.

HSUS has replied by trying to draw a distinction between its members and the average American. Wayne Pacelle recently told the Associated Press that “HSUS donors understand its role” (reporter’s paraphrase).

It turns out Pacelle could hardly be more wrong.

We conducted an online survey of HSUS supporters and received some shocking results. Here’s the bottom line, from a survey of 1,010 self-identified HSUS donors, who answered “yes” to the question “Have you ever donated to the Humane Society of the United States?”:

  • Just 1 percent of HSUS’s donors list “farm animal protection” as their primary reason for supporting the group.
  • Seventy-four percent of donors give to HSUS to either help pet shelters or reduce the number of animals euthanized each year.
  • Ninety—yes, 90—percent of HSUS’s donors were unaware that it gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters.
  • Knowing HSUS’s non-support of shelters, 80 percent of HSUS’s own donors think the group “misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters.”
  • Nearly 50 percent of HSUS’s donors say they are less likely to support the group now that they know HSUS gives so little to local pet shelters.

This evidence should leave no doubt that HSUS relies on misconception—the notion that it’s a real “humane society.” Most Americans—and we can now say most HSUS donors—believe that HSUS is mostly about supporting pet shelters.

HSUS needs this false perception to raise the hundreds of millions it collects. The poll clearly shows that half of donors would be less likely to give now that they know how little of their donations goes to local pet shelters. HSUS must hope they stay in the dark.

Wayne Pacelle can no longer claim that HSUS donors “understand” what HSUS is up to. And all the rhetoric about how HSUS is clear about what it does not only seems like a cop-out, but it comes across as blaming the victim. After all, more than 85 percent of the animals in HSUS’s manipulative ads are cats and dogs.

There are a few reform options. HSUS could prominently put a large-print disclaimer on all of its ads that it is independent of local humane societies. (Right now, less than 1 percent of HSUS’s TV ads have a disclaimer—and it’s in small font.) HSUS could stop manipulating viewers with a disproportionate amount of pets. And HSUS could simply change its name, replacing “Humane Society” with something more appropriate. (The “Vegan Lawyers and Lobbyists Society”?)

HSUS won’t, of course. As regular readers already know well, HSUS wants to get rid most human uses of animals—most notably in agriculture. That’s not the goal of a cat-and-dog group—that’s the goal of a PETA-type group. It’s no surprise then that HSUS leaders cut their teeth in radical animal rights/liberation groups.

And that’s certainly not the goal of HSUS’s supporters. Which is why we’re going to make sure they find out the truth.

Full results (PDF):

1. What is the primary reason you support the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)?

  • 40%     To help HSUS care for homeless dogs and cats in animal shelters and humane socities.
  • 3%       To help HSUS’s animal rescue team.
  • 15%     To raise awareness about animal cruelty.
  • 34%     To reduce the number of animals put down in shelters each year.
  • 1%       To support HSUS’s farm animal protection programs.
  • 6%       To support HSUS’s political lobbying for anti-animal cruelty legislation.

2. Were you aware that HSUS gives just 1 percent of its budget to local pet shelters?

  • 90%    No
  • 10%    Yes

3. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, do you think the HSUS misleads people into thinking that it supports local humane societies and pet shelters?

  • 6%     Not at all
  • 13%   Not really
  • 28%   Somewhat
  • 52%   Very Much

4. Now that you know that HSUS gives just one percent of its budget to local pet shelters, are you more or less likely to support HSUS?

  • 21%    Much Less Likely
  • 26%    Less Likely
  • 8%      More Likely
  • 6%      Much More Likely
  • 38%    Neither

Survey Methodology

HumaneWatch conducted a nationally representative online survey of 1,010 Humane Society of the United States donors from April 21 – 25, 2012. The survey’s margin of error is ±3.1%.

Read More…

Before You Donate Your Money, Effort and Time to The “Humane Society Of The United States” (aka HSUS)… Please Consider This…


TWG Note:  I’ve been screaming about the Humane Society of the United States for a while now, and today I feel the urge to continue my rant.  Yesterday’s post about California SB 1221  reignited my fury over those sleazebags at HSUS.   As an animal lover, I’m deeply offended by their continued deception, preying on the sympathies of my fellow animal lovers to line their pockets and to aid and abet their own devious agendas….  They’re a greedy, snarling pack of sleazy lawyers.

Here’s a bit of the post from yesterday…..

SB 1221… 

SB 1221 is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a group that supports banning all hunting with or without dogs.  Its President, Wayne Pacelle, has been quoted as saying: “We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.”

In 2003, HSUS unsuccessfully championed California Assembly Bill 342 that would have banned all hunting with hounds.  They now seem to be taking a deceptive and incremental approach to accomplish the same goal via SB 1221.  Don’t let anti-hunting extremists remove another traditional form of hunting.

Below are some posts from the website HUMANEWATCH.ORG that should get the point across……. They’re keeping an eye on those deceitful crooks at HSUS…  If this is something that interests you, please sign up for their email distribution list.

FROM HUMANEWATCH.ORG:

There’s a lot of information about the Humane Society of the United States that people don’t know. It can be overwhelming, especially as we blog on a regular basis to add to the knowledge pool. To get up to speed about America’s most deceptive animal rights group, we recommend you check out the following:

Despite its name, the Humane Society of the United States is not affiliated with your local humane society. HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter and gives only 1 percent of its budget to local shelters.

This is news to most Americans. According to public polling, about 70 percent of Americans mistakenly believe that HSUS is a pet shelter “umbrella group” and that HSUS gives most of its money to pet shelters.

Why the massive perception-reality gap? We can certainly thank HSUS’s multimillion-dollar ad campaign. You know the formula: Slow music, B-list celebrity spokeswoman, and pictures of sad-looking dogs and cats. And that fine-print disclaimer that HSUS is independent of local humane societies? It’s on less than 1 percent of the ads. See how the scam works?

Here’s what an honest HSUS TV appeal might look like. There’s no confusion, and no need for a disclaimer. But we’re going to go out on a limb and guess it wouldn’t be quite as lucrative for HSUS.

 

Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?channel_url=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.ak.facebook.com%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter.php%3Fversion%3D5%23cb%3Df323f9389bc9138%26origin%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fhumanewatch.org%252Ff1d16ba088f5383%26domain%3Dhumanewatch.org%26relation%3Dparent.parent&extended_social_context=false&font=lucida%20grande&href=http%3A%2F%2Fhumanewatch.org%2Findex.php%2Fsite%2Fpost%2Fwill_hsus_be_bullhooked_for_millions_in_legal_fees%2F&layout=box_count&locale=en_US&node_type=link&sdk=joey&show_faces=false&width=60<!– doesn’t seem to work, though it does give the id number of the post:Trying other permalink options for (Will HSUS Be Bullhooked for Millions in Legal Fees?)? –>The ongoing legal drama between a set of animal rights groups and Feld Entertainment, which owns the Ringling Bros. circus, has taken a saucy new turn. And it looks like the animal rights activists and their lawyers could soon be neck-deep in elephant dung.

First, a quick review. Animal rights activists brought a lawsuit against Feld in 2000 alleging elephant abuse in violation of the Endangered Species Act, with former Feld trainer Tom Rider as a key witness and plaintiff. After years of legal wrangling, D.C. federal judge Emmet Sullivan threw out the lawsuit in late 2009, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing and—more importantly—that Rider was “essentially a paid plaintiff and fact witness who is not credible” after receiving at least $190,000 from the animal rights cabal, his sole source of income as the case made its way through the courts. A US Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal. (Read the full opinion here.)

Feld returned fire, filing a racketeering lawsuit that hinges on the court’s findings. How the alleged scheme worked, according to Sullivan’s 2009 ruling, was essentially that counsel for plaintiffs’ law firm Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal ran a nonprofit called the “Wildlife Advocacy Project” (WAP) and other groups funneled money through it to Rider. (Rider also allegedly received payments directly from animal rights group plaintiffs and through MGC.)

HSUS fits in because the Fund for Animals was a plaintiff in the suit against Feld, and merged with HSUS in 2004/2005. Fund chief—now an HSUS executive—Michael Markarian also apparently fits into the equation, according to Sullivan’s ruling:

Beginning in December 2001 and continuing until at least the beginning of 2008, the organizational plaintiffs made payments to WAP for the purpose of funding Mr. Rider. While FFA/HSUS (Mr. Markarian) testified that it was not certain whether WAP used its “donations” for other purposes as well, this testimony is undermined by the documents underlying FFA/HSUS’s “donations,” which indicate that the money was specifically for use in connection with this litigation. FFA/HSUS’s testimony also is questionable given that in 2003, plaintiffs’ counsel, Ms. Meyer, specifically sent an email to the representatives of the organizational plaintiffs, including Mr. Markarian, requesting funds to support Mr. Rider’s advocacy efforts regarding the elephants and the lawsuit, and expressly suggesting that the funds for Mr. Rider could be contributed to WAP so that they would be tax deductible.

Also named in the racketeering lawsuit are HSUS attorney Kimberly Ockene and HSUS Senior Vice President Jonathan Lovvorn, both of whom used to work at Meyer, Glitzenstein, and Crystal and were plaintiff attorneys during the Endangered Species Act complaint. In fact, Feld’s attorneys allege that money was taken out of an HSUS bank account and earmarked for Rider.

So what’s new?

Last week Feld’s attorneys filed a motion in the original case—not the racketeering case—demanding that the plaintiffs pay for legal fees that Feld accrued, totaling an estimated $20 million. Defending a lawsuit for a decade tends to be an expensive endeavor, after all.

This could be a double-whammy for HSUS. It could be on the hook for a good chunk of the $20 million in legal fees. Additionally, Feld is seeking treble damages under RICO against HSUS and the other defendants in the separate racketeering lawsuit—so add another $60 million to the potential pot.

And that’s not all.

Feld’s attorneys are also asking the court to officially sanction the attorneys for their conduct. They allege that “Not only did counsel bring fraudulent (Rider) and frivolous (API) claims, they doggedly pursued them for more than eleven years.” Feld alleges that the plaintiffs knew that their key witness was unreliable and “each and every step of the way counsel had an opportunity to drop either Rider or API or both (and put an end to FEI’s mounting legal expenses). Yet they did not. Instead, they embraced Rider’s lies and API’s meritless and hollow allegations…”

And since the court is apparently allowed to hold the attorneys jointly and severally liable for the estimated $20 million in legal fees (if the court rules the plaintiffs should pay it), that means HSUS, Lovvorn, and Ockene, among others, could have quite the bill, along with a bench-slap to go with it.

We encourage you to read the whole motion for all the intricacies and details. When there’s a ruling, we’ll be sure you’re among the first to know.

READ MORE AT HUMANEWATCH.ORG

California Senate and Assembly Commitees to Debate MORE Firearms Bills Tomorrow

April 23, 2012 1 comment

 

California Senate and Assembly Committees to Hear Pro- and Anti-Gun Legislation Tomorrow

TOMORROW, several firearm-related bills will be heard in committees in the state Senate and Assembly.  In the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, Senate Bill 1221 and Senate Bill 1367 are scheduled to be heard.  In the state Senate Committee on Public Safety, Senate Bill 1567 and Senate Bill 1569 are scheduled to be heard.  In the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety, Assembly Bill 2182 and Assembly Bill 2549 are scheduled to be heard.   This Wednesday, April 25, the state Assembly Committee on Appropriations is scheduled to hear Assembly Bill 2333. 

 

Please call AND e-mail the respective committees TODAY!

 

TOMORROW, several firearm-related bills will be heard in committees in the state Senate and Assembly. 

 

In the state Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water, Senate Bill 1221 and Senate Bill 1367 are scheduled to be heard.   Please call AND e-mail members of the state Senate Committee  on Natural Resources and Water  and urge them to OPPOSE SB 1221 and SUPPORT SB 1367.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

In the state Senate Committee on Public Safety, Senate Bill 1567 and Senate Bill 1569 are scheduled to be heard.   Please call and e-mail members of the state Senate Committee on Public Safety and urge them to SUPPORT SB 1567 and SB 1569.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

In the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety, Assembly Bill 2182 and Assembly Bill 2549 are scheduled to be heard.  Please call AND e-mail members of the state Assembly Committee on Public Safety and urge them to OPPOSE AB 2182 and AB 2549.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

This Wednesday, April 25, the Assembly Appropriations Committee is scheduled to hear Assembly Bill 2333Please call AND e-mail members of the Assembly Appropriations Committee and urge them to OPPOSE AB 2333.  Contact information for these committee members can be found here.

 

Bill explanation for bills that need to be OPPOSED:

 

SB 1221, introduced by state Senator Ted Lieu (D-28), would ban hunting bears and bobcats with dogs.  Hunting with dogs is a tradition that continues to be practiced across the country. Many dog breeds with select characteristics for hunting can be traced back for thousands of years.  Seventeen states allow bear hunting with dogs.  The use of hounds for hunting has never been shown to have an adverse impact on wildlife numbers as biologists and wildlife experts direct regulations and bag limits just as they do with other hunting seasons.

 

SB 1221 is supported by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) – a group that supports banning all hunting with or without dogs.  Its President, Wayne Pacelle, has been quoted as saying: We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States … We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.

 

In 2003, HSUS unsuccessfully championed California Assembly Bill 342 that would have banned all hunting with hounds.  They now seem to be taking a deceptive and incremental approach to accomplish the same goal via SB 1221.  Don’t let anti-hunting extremists remove another traditional form of hunting.

 

AB 2182, introduced by state Assembly Member Norma Torres (D-31), would require that a person be arrested if they inadvertently attempt to bring a firearm through an airport TSA checkpoint and ban that person from entering that airport in the future.

 

AB 2549, introduced by state Assembly Member Isadore Hall (D-52), ignores many of the fundamental legal issues that have been created by the firearms polices and regulations of the California Department of Justice.  One specific section of AB 2549 will allow ONLY a law enforcement officer to retain ONE of the personally owned and regulated firearms should they leave their issuing agency, the rest of their personally owned and regulated firearms will confiscated and /or surrendered for disposal.  These regulated firearms can only be owned by law enforcement officers if he/she has received a letter from their issuing agency first.

 

AB 2333, introduced by Assemblyman Jose Solorio (D-69), would expand the crime of bringing a BB gun onto school grounds, to include non-metallic projectiles, and would impose an unnecessary and potentially severe criminal liability on everyday toys (not just BB guns and pellet guns) with severe penalties. Under this bill, a parent who inadvertently has a toy gun in their car when picking up their child from school can end up facing FELONY charges and up to a year in jail; the same is true for students who inadvertently have a toy that expels a plastic (or even a foam) projectile in their backpack or car.  AB 2333 would also create a negligent storage law for BB “devices,” a person who knows or reasonably should know that a minor is likely to gain access to that BB device without the permission of the minor’s parent or legal guardian is subject to civil fines starting at $250.

 

Bill explanation for bills that need to be SUPPORTED:

 

SB 1367, introduced by state Senator Jean Fuller (R-18), would allow a concealed carry permit holder to carry concealed for self-defense while archery hunting.  California law already allows permit holders to carry concealed during firearms seasons.

 

SB 1567, introduced by state Senator Doug La Malfa (R-4), would REDUCE the current firearms transfer waiting period from ten days to “instant” for persons licensed to carry a concealed firearm.

 

SB 1569, also introduced by state Senator Fuller, would REDUCE the current firearms transfer waiting period from ten days to three days.

 

 

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE

Gary Marbut and The Montana Shooting Sports Association Letter To Fish and Wildlife “Protection” Agency….. BE HONEST AND DO YOUR JOB, OR NO MORE FUNDS!

January 21, 2012 2 comments

[TWG Note:  Below is a letter, written by Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association to the Fish and Wildlife “Protection” agency.  I think you’ll find it most interesting, particularly if you live in Montana, Washington, Idaho and Oregon.  Please see my personal note below the letter, and please help me in sending Mr. Marbut a heartfelt THANKS for his efforts on behalf of our gun rights, wildlife, hunters and for all Americans who feel that Federal agencies have overstepped their boundaries.]

************************************************************

Shane Colton
FWP Commission

Shane,

See the story in the Bozeman Chronicle at:
http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/ap_news/montana/article_dcde1660-dd51-59b1-8515-a8e0b9957576.html

This is the first overt symptom of the agency “death spiral” for FWP.

For two decades, FWP has come to focus on wildlife and biology, when it should have been focused on fish and game.  A significant part of this picture has been FWP’s shocking tolerance and support for large predators.  FWP’s total, willing, even eager cooperation with large predator enhancement has long been predicted to result in an economic crash for the agency, when the word unavoidably spreads that there is no game left to hunt so there is no reason to buy a license.

FWP leaders have for too long leaned on the scales of policy by making excuses for the devastation wrought to game herds by large predators, fudging game counts and census numbers, and blaming any population declines that could not be covered up on climate change, sunspots, or aliens – anything but the truth.  This coverup culture has been fostered by senior staff, always near retirement, who knew they’d be gone and not in the hot seat when the crisis actually arrived.

If the overall FWP attitude had not been so Hell-bent on “ecosystem management,” “biological diversity,” “natural balance” and other similar catchy but terminal “green” ideas destined to end hunting, FWP managers could have projected the current crisis years ago.  I guess nobody at FWP noticed or cared several years ago when the editor of the NRA’s American Hunter magazine wrote a feature article about his fruitless elk hunting trip to southwest Montana, a trip where the only tracks he saw were wolf tracks.  Nobody at FWP noticed or cared about the other thousands of warnings from Montana citizens.  Worse, those warnings were ignored in a mad pursuit of a “green” agenda for FWP.

The stock mantra from FWP managers has been:  We’re the professionals.  We know best.  The outcome concerned citizens project will never come to pass.  The “evidence” of crashing game herds citizens cite is just “campfire stories” and is without merit because it doesn’t come from professional FWP biologists.

Yet when retired FWP employees, freed from the institutional FWP muzzle, asserted that FWP-tolerated wolves were turning the Montana landscape into a “biological desert,” FWP dismissed such comments summarily.

For the last two decades, FWP has been busy digging a hole for itself.  As it sees daylight disappearing around the edges of the hole, it still won’t quit digging.

Of course, the obvious solution for the bureaucratic-bound and reality-disconnected FWP will be to announce, “We’ve been managing wildlife for the general public (including the non-Montana public) for years.  Now we need the general public to pay the bills.”  FWP has so fouled its nest by inadvisably removing hunters from the economic equation that it will eventually have to go to the Legislature asking for relief, including increased fees that hunters simply won’t pay to access a vanishing resource, and, ultimately, general taxpayer money.

You can bet that when FWP approaches the Legislature demanding an allowance increase as a reward for having flunked Econ 101, MSSA and thousands of Montana hunters will be there to say “Absolutely no way.”  FWP has not only ignored the many warnings from Montana hunters, it has mocked and disrespected them.

What FWP needs is not more or alternate sources of money, but a total change in attitude and culture.  Until that happens, let FWP starve!  It is not serving Montanans.

Sincerely yours,

 

Gary Marbut, president
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org
author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com

 
*************************************************************

[TWG Note: Gary Marbut, President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association, has been diligently and tirelessly advocating for hunters, wildlife and for our Second and Tenth Amendment Rights not only here in Montana, but all over the country.  We can Thank Him for the Firearms Freedom Act, among many, many successful legislative efforts and accomplishments on our behalf.   Mr. Marbut is an amazing individual, and I hope you’ll join me in thanking him for his efforts and success.  

 

I’ve personally witnessed Mr Marbut’s relentless work here at the Montana Legislature and in numerous opinion articles he’s written in his efforts to expose the truth about gun rights, wildlife and Tenth Amendment issues.  He’s a SUPERSTAR in my book, and if you can help support his efforts, I’m certain a donation in any amount would be very much appreciated by him.  If you’d like to become a member of The Montana Shooting Sports Association, you can show your support by purchasing a membership for a mere $25  You do not need to be a resident of Montana to join the Montana Shooting Sports Association.  Donations and membership fees are used to help Gary’s efforts in advocating for our rights not just here in Montana, but all across America.

 

Make donation with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure!
Donate to MSSA political efforts

SB 6813 – WA Senate bill would merge WDFW, Parks under Natural Resources

February 24, 2010 Leave a comment

Evergreen State hunters and fishermen have historically been treated with a mix of indifference, disdain and outright contempt by the State Legislature and the governor’s office over the past quarter-century.

When thousands of sportsmen rallied on the Capitol steps in the 1980s – brought there by the now-inactive Sportsmen’s Rights Coalition – they were essentially given lip service. The old Department of Game was merged with the Department of Fisheries to create the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, an indication that the agency would – and many complain has – gradually drifted away from the primary mission for which it was created, to serve hunters and anglers and to conserve, protect and enhance fish and game populations. Many sportsmen so hate this agency and the direction that it has taken that they refer to it as the Department of NO Fish and NO Wildlife; an agency that is less interested in enhancing deer and elk herds than it is in bringing back wolves and giving them a big hug.

Abolishes the department of fish and wildlife and transfers its powers, duties, and functions to the department of natural resources.

The advent of a divisive and many believe disastrous hunting management structure called “Resource Allocation” has been blamed for reducing the number of Washington hunters by some 100,000 over the past quarter-century. Under this scenario, hunters must choose whether they will hunt big game with a bow, modern firearm (including handgun), or muzzleloader. Washington’s “strategy” limits hunters, and essentially keeps user groups at each other’s throats, vying against one another for more time afield for their particular interest group.

The once-thriving pheasant release program is a shadow of its former self, and non-existent in eastern Washington where, a generation ago, pheasant hunting rivaled that found in some Midwest states. The only “new” program that has benefited Washington hunters in the past 25 years has been the wild turkey project spearheaded by now-retired game biologist Dan Blatt. This was a roaring success thanks to Blatt’s savvy about putting different turkey sub-species into the proper habitats similar to their native habitats in the states from whence brood stock was brought years ago.

So why not change the agency? This state’s hunters are not of one mind; many enjoy the reduced numbers of people in the field during fall hunting seasons. They don’t see the “big picture,” however and neither do younger hunters (and anglers), who lack the historical perspective and never experienced “the good old days” of hunting and fishing here. Their shrinking numbers translates to shrinking political clout, and ultimately, that’s going to mean reduced to non-existent management of this state’s game populations.

Right now, there is legislation (Senate Bill 6813) lurking in the Senate Natural Resources Committee that, if adopted and signed by Gov. Christine Gregoire – as she most lilely would with the excuse of trimming the state budget (it won’t, but the public doesn’t understand that) – it would merge the WDFW with the State Parks Department under the Department of Natural Resources.

Want to talk about a disaster? This is the kind of scenario that the late Irwin Allen would have put on film as The Towering Bureaucracy. If hunters think they have little influence now, wait until that mega-agency becomes a reality.

An e-mail alert now being circulated by pro-gun and hunting communities warns, “Every fishing, hunting and related program and every dedicated fund is at risk for termination or reduction.” This alert, originating with the Hunters Heritage Council, notes that “The Senate budget released (Monday) zeroes out the WDFW budget, reduces the agency operating budget by $10.5 million and transfers all WDFW functions to DNR. No proof has been presented that the state ‘saves’ $10.5 million in operating costs by these actions.”

 

“Transfers, administratively, the duties of the governor appointed state parks and recreation commission and the fish and wildlife commission to the department of natural resources.”

The e-mail alert also warns, “Creating another super agency while doing harm to the already existing programs willingly funded by hunters and fishers is not responsible wildlife management.”

There are 22 members of the Senate Ways & Means Committee, and they need to hear from hunters and anglers concerned about the future of the resources.

Perhaps instead of merging the WDFW, it ought to be broken up and restored to two separate agencies: Fisheries, which would be tasked solely with managing for commercial and tribal fisheries, and the Department of Fish and Game, whose job it should be to put ten million more trout into our lakes and streams, produce two to five million more steelhead, increase the deer herds by 50,000 and add 10,000 more elk, and that’s just for starters.

Hunters and anglers are being encouraged to contact each member of the Senate Committee and tell them “Do NOT merge WDFW and DNR.”

Senator Margarita Prentice (Chair) – prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov

Senator Karen Fraser (Vice-Chair, Capital Budget) – fraser.karen@leg.wa.gov

Senator Rodney Tom (Vice Chair, Operating Budget – author of the merger effort) – tom.rodney@leg.wa.gov

Senator Joseph Zarelli (Ranking Minority) – zarelli.joseph@leg.wa.gov

Senator Dale Brandland – brandland.dale@leg.wa.gov

Senator Mike Carrell – carrell.michael@leg.wa.gov

Senator Darlene Fairley – fairley.darlene@leg.wa.gov

Senator Mike Hewitt – hewitt.mike@leg.wa.gov

Senator Steve Hobbs – hobbs.steve@leg.wa.gov

Senator Jim Honeyford – honeyford.jim@leg.wa.gov

Senator Karen Keiser – keiser.karen@leg.wa.gov

Senator Adam Kline – kline.adam@leg.wa.gov

Senator Jeanne Kohl-Welles – kohl-welles.jeanne@leg.wa.gov

Senator Joe McDermott – mcdermott.joe@leg.wa.gov

Senator Ed Murray – murray.edward@leg.wa.gov

Senator Eric Oemig – oemig.eric@leg.wa.gov

Senator Linda Evans Parlette – parlette.linda@leg.wa.gov

Senator Cheryl Pflug – pflug.cheryl@leg.wa.gov

Senator Craig Pridemore – pridemore.craig@leg.wa.gov

Senator Debbie Regala – regala.debbie@leg.wa.gov

Senator Phil Rockefeller – rockefeller.phil@leg.wa.gov

Senator Mark Schoesler – schoesler.mark@leg.wa.gov

Outdoorsmen and women can also contact their own senator here.

Original Article Can Be Found Here: http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2010m2d24-WA-Senate-bill-would-merge-WDFW-Parks-under-Natural-Resources?cid=examiner-email#

 

 

SMUG FACES AND MIDDLE FINGERS

January 26, 2010 Leave a comment

Just LOOK at this trash we are fed by OUR Legislature here in Washington State. 

They have a Judiciary Committee Meeting scheduled for 10:00 Tuesday, then once they find out We, The People are taking time off work, driving ALL THE WAY TO OLYMPIA to voice our concern, they change the schedule to allocate ONLY 30 MINUTES for the Committee Meeting! 

Nothing But Smug Faces and Middle Fingers from our Socialist Government and “Representatives” here In Washington State.

We’ll be there ANYWAY.  THEY ARE OUR REPRESENTATIVES. NOT OUR RULERS.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/cmd/default.aspx?aid=15466

%d bloggers like this: