Posts Tagged ‘animal “rights”idiocy’

Grand Rapids, Mich. – In a stunning violation of 2nd Amendment rights, the U.S. District Court of Western Michigan ruled police have the legal authority to detain individuals that choose to exercise their constitutional right to open carry a firearm. Open Carry is also specifically allowed under Michigan law.

The ruling means that people in Michigan who choose to exercise this constitutional right are now subject to being stopped by law enforcement for engaging in a completely lawful activity.

Officers detained Johann Deffert in early 2013. He was walking down the sidewalk with a holstered FNP-45 pistol, after receiving a 9-1-1 call from a woman who spotted Deffert with the open carried, but holstered, handgun on his person.

The dispatcher initially informed the caller that Michigan is an open carry state. However, the woman subsequently explained that she found Deffert’s presence alarming, due in part to his wearing of camouflage, although she admitted that he wasn’t threatening anyone. Somehow the dispatcher made the decision that someone engaging in a completely legal activity, as earlier in the call noted by the dispatcher, should now be inspected by police, due to caller saying they found wearing camo disturbing.

The absurdity in logic; that someone wearing camo takes the situation from being a completely legal situation not to be interfered with, and raises it to a level of needing police assistance, shows the extreme arbitrary nature of the entire situation.

The incident was captured on responding officer Moe Williams’ dash cam, and lasted 14 minutes. Williams had indicated he believed that perhaps Deffert was suffering from some type of mental illness, as he seemed to be “talking to nobody” when the officer arrived on scene. Upon further investigation, Deffert was revealed to have been happily singing the song “Hakuna Matata” from the Disney movie “The Lion King” while strolling down the sidewalk.

The video shows the officer command Deffert to lay face down on the ground upon arrival on the scene. Deffert was treated as if he were a criminal that needed to prove he was not doing anything wrong, as the officer detained him while running a mental and criminal background check. Deffert was polite and respectful throughout the encounter, but strongly asserted his rights regarding open carry laws in the state of Michigan.

Remember, all of this transpired despite Deffert’s total compliance with Michigan law, in respect to open carry of a firearm. Eventually, Deffert was released, as he had violated no laws, done nothing wrong, and there was no legitimate reason to hold him. Shortly after the incident, in what seemed like a vindication for Deffert at the time, Grand Rapids Police Sgt. Steve LaBreque recommended to Moe’s commanding officer, that Moe “would benefit from some additional training in handling ‘open carry’ issues.”

Several months later Deffert filed a federal lawsuit alleging his constitutional rights were violated and that he was assaulted and falsely imprisoned. The legality of open carry in the Michigan was never in question, only if law enforcement had the authority to detain an individual simply because they were open carrying a firearm, according to court records.

In the most convoluted of logic, U.S. District Judge Janet Neff claimed that officers do have such authority. Neff wrote that the officers were “justified in following up on the 9-1-1 call and using swift action to determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood.”

When a call to 9-1-1 is made in regard to a completely legal activity, the police should not even be dispatched. If in fact the police needed to “determine whether [Deffert’s] behavior gave rise to a need to protect or preserve life … in the neighborhood,” they need not impeded a citizen from going about their legitimate and legal business,” as Neff asserts, but rather could passively watch from a distance to determine if there is any reasonable suspicion of criminal activity afoot, and if so act accordingly.

The most glaring problem with Neff’s logic, is that there is no reason for police to ever assess someones behavior who is simply engaging in constitutionally protected and lawful activity, regardless if another citizens takes issue with the activity. If the activity fails to rise to the level of criminality, then police have no business getting investigating or getting involved. The police, as public servants, aren’t paid to investigate non-crimes.

The idea that someone needs to prove their innocence for engaging in a constitutionally protected activity is contrary to everything America teaches its children to believe about liberty and freedom.

The case will most likely be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The National Rifle Association and others have offered to assist in the appeal.

It will be interesting to see what open carry advocates across the nation, and specifically those in Texas, a hotbed of open carry activism, think about this ruling; and how they would respond if this were to become the standard of law in their state.

Sound off in the comments!

Be sure to share this critical information with all your liberty loving friends!

Read the decision below.

Johann Deffert court documents

(Bloomberg) — California’s ban on new semiautomatic handguns that don’t stamp identifying information on the cartridge was upheld by a U.S. judge in a major loss for gun-rights groups.

The law barring sales of handguns without the microstamping technology doesn’t violate the Constitution’s Second Amendment because gun owners don’t have a right to buy specific types of firearms, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento said in her ruling.

“Plaintiffs insist they have the right to determine the precise way in which they would exercise their Second Amendment rights,” Mueller said. The insistence upon particular handguns falls “outside the scope of the right to bear arms,” she said.

California in 2013 became the first state to bar retailers from selling new models of semiautomatic handguns not equipped to imprint the weapon’s make, model and serial number on the cartridge when a bullet is fired. The statute was supported by law enforcement because it can help deter or solve crime.

Thursday’s ruling that the requirement doesn’t violate the Second Amendment will prompt other states to impose similar requirements, in particular because there’s wide popular support for ballistic fingerprinting, said Allison Anderman, an attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in San Francisco.

“Microstamping is a really important tool for law enforcement,” Anderman said in a phone interview.

De Facto Ban

Calguns Foundation Inc. and the Second Amendment Foundation argued that the requirement amounts to a de facto ban on sales of new semiautomatics because several manufacturers said they wouldn’t produce guns that included microstamp technology even if it meant their firearms couldn’t be sold in California, the most populous U.S. state.

About 1.5 million handguns were legally sold in California since opponents sued in 2009 to block the microstamping requirement, which according to Mueller’s ruling shows that the law doesn’t effectively ban the sale of firearms in the state.

The District of Columbia, the only other place in the U.S. to mandate microstamping, is set to begin enforcing that requirement next year, Anderman said.

The two gun rights groups said in a court filing Thursday that they will appeal the ruling by Mueller, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama.

‘Strong Case’

“The court’s reasoning, that California’s prohibition of most handguns doesn’t even implicate the Second Amendment, is interesting,” Alan Gura, a lawyer for the groups, said Friday in an e-mail. “But we’re confident that we have a strong case on appeal.”

The case may go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 2008 upheld individuals’ right to own handguns, calling them the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

The 2008 high court ruling left room for gun-control backers to impose new rules to promote safety. California, New York and Maryland, among other states, enacted restrictions that U.S. gun manufacturers and retailers contend are intended to regulate their $14 billion industry out of business.

The California law was signed in 2007 by then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican, and was put on hold until 2013 when state Attorney General Kamala Harris, a Democrat running for the U.S. Senate next year, determined the technology was available to all gun makers and wasn’t encumbered by patent claims.

“The court’s ruling means that more gun crimes will be solved, more lives will be saved, and California communities will be safer,” Mike Feuer, the Los Angeles city attorney and the author of the microstamping bill, said in a statement.

The case is Pena v. Cid, 09-cv-01185, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California (Sacramento)

No matter how many threats the left makes about taking our guns from us, our Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms, much to their chagrin. But Obama and his communist regime will stop at nothing to do just that. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, or DSM-5, which was published in 2013, targets certain internet users as mentally ill – allowing gun confiscation.

Many practitioners point out that the new DSM-5 also makes a pathology out of simple and normal behaviors such as grieving for the loss of a loved one, as the bereavement exclusion was removed in this version of the manual.

Targeting free speech

This constitutes a  subjective approach in diagnosing of mental illness in that it promises to end free speech and any form of political dissent. The federal government has already declared anyone who opposes its unconstitutional policies as having “political paranoia,” which is now diagnosed as a type of mental illness. So if you disagree with the corruption, subversiveness, and lawlessness of Obama and his cabal, you deserve a straight jacket, and it is, once again, grounds for taking your guns. Example here from a previous article.

Vague criteria

If someone is judged, by some vague set of criteria, to spend too much time on the internet, they could be judged to be mentally ill and ineligible to own a gun. The alternative media, which is a fancy way to say conservative media like Uncle Sam’s Misguided  Children, is predicated on internet readership and listeners.

Gun ownership

These groups would be among the first groups to oppose a martial law crackdown, and now they are the first to be targeted. This is a backdoor method to disarm citizens who would oppose the abject tyranny being imposed upon America. And these facts sum up what is truly behind the Obama administration’s latest attack upon gun ownership because they want to prey upon the citizens of this nation by disarming as many of us as possible.

And if you thought it would be any different with some other leftist in power, VP Biden feels that they can violate HIPAA privacy regulations in requiring the states to report who has been treated for a mental illness. Therefore, in the name of confiscating your gun, this administration thinks it is acceptable to violate federal privacy laws.

In the eyes of the Obama administration, all mental illnesses are created equal. A person with a phobia is just as dangerous as a sociopath. One in six Americans have a “diagnosable anxiety disorder.” Under the new proposed guidelines, all of these people would be ineligible to have a gun, even though there is not a shred of research which indicates this population would be inclined towards gun violence any more than any other population.


But it doesn’t stop at internet users. The Statistical and Diagnostic Manual (DSM-4r) defined Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) as a highly controversial mental illness used to describe children and teens as mentally ill if they exhibited disobedience and defiance.

Most practitioners do not take this diagnosis seriously and mistakenly believed that it would fade away because defiance and oppositional behaviors are hallmark traits of healthy rebellion exhibited by children and teens as they seek independence.

Rather than ODD fading away, the diagnosis has become the tool of the ruling elite. The new DSM-5 has expanded the definition of ODD to include adults who exemplify “paranoid ideation” about the government and frequently express these delusional ideations on the internet.

Political abuse

In its analysis of the political abuse of psychiatry in both the Soviet Union and China, The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Lawstated that “Psychiatric incarceration of mentally healthy people is uniformly understood to be a particularly pernicious form of repression, because it uses the powerful modalities of medicine as tools of punishment, and it compounds a deep affront to human rights with deception and fraud…”

In psychiatric terms, we have become the old Soviet Union… where we can be incarcerated and stripped of our rights for having the illness of “political schizophrenia.”

There are many things we have to fight within our own government, but this is one of the scariest things I have come across. Not only will they use this as a way to disarm us, but what will come next? Will they use it as an excuse to lock people away? Speak out against your government and it suddenly becomes grounds for incarceration. This is the most blatant attempt to strip us of our 1st and 2nd amendment rights I have seen yet. We, as a free people, had better start doing something to ensure our freedoms before Obama and his evil regime take them all away from us.

The Humane Society of the United States’ mission is to end hunting everywhere, and they’ve never been closer to realizing this goal than they are today. Can hunters shut down their scheme?

The Muck Boots Company waded deep into a quagmire this summer and emerged on the other side soiled, smeared, and worse for the wear. The outdoor footwear company announced via Facebook on August 1 that the Muck Team had raised more than $2,000 for the Humane Society of the United States. Its customer base of farmers, ranchers, and hunters went ballistic.

One customer identified HSUS as “the sworn enemy of hunting and the outdoors lifestyle.” Scores more declared they would never again buy a Muck product. A #WhatTheMuck hashtag lit up Twitter. When the dust settled, it turned out the announcement was written in error—employees had intended to identify a local animal shelter—but the damage was done.

This incident made it clear that HSUS’s anti-hunting agenda is common knowledge within the outdoor community, and that sportsmen and women throughout the nation refuse to support HSUS.

Which raises the question: If we are so staunchly united against HSUS, why is this organization of antis creeping closer to shutting down hunting?

The answer lies in the virtually inexhaustible financial resources HSUS has at its disposal. After paying the bills, HSUS reported $195.4 million in net assets on its 2012 tax returns, which includes nearly $178 million of investments in publicly traded securities. That means HSUS is largely liquid—it can convert those investments into cash essentially whenever it wants.

Those public tax documents also reveal HSUS collected nearly $113 million in contributions and grants in 2012. That’s $7.8 million more than the previous year. HSUS capitalizes on its ability to suck up dollars from animal-lovers who think they are donating to local pet shelters, and it pours those donations into anti-hunting crusades.

The Humane Society of the United States reported $195.4 million in net assets on its public tax documents in 2012.

HSUS has a long list of victories against sportsmen and wildlife conservation in its ongoing battle to destroy hunting.

Today, HSUS continues to lead a multi-pronged attack against America’s hunters. The antis are deploying their political contacts and financial assets to strike at both state and federal levels. Current campaigns seek to overturn wolf hunting in Michigan; ban lead ammunition on public lands; and outlaw bear baiting, trapping, and hunting
with hounds in Maine
. If successful, these unwarranted restrictions will cripple wildlife management and hunting as we know it.

It’s no easy feat to disable such a well-funded, well-connected, and well-oiled political machine. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

A hunter called this black wolf in to 40 yards in Alberta last winter / Photo courtesy of Mike Faw.

Playing by the Rules in Michigan  
By Tony Hansen

Wayne Pacelle, president of HSUS, stood 10 feet from me, his tan glowing like Vegas neon. In a moment he would step to the lectern to declare war on Michigan hunters with another referendum aimed at overturning state wolf management.

After delivering his speech—which claimed the wolf population was too fragile for a “trophy hunt”—Pacelle adjusted his suit collar and strode away to catch a jet. He was off to advance HSUS’s ultimate mission to end hunting—species by species, state by state.

But as he delivered that 2013 speech in Lansing, Pacelle had no way of knowing his national “charity” would suffer defeat by local hunters rallying under their own nonprofit. HSUS reported $125.7 million in revenue in 2012. That same year, Michigan United Conservation Clubs—the state’s largest conservation group—brought in $1.2 million, or less than one percent of HSUS’s earnings.

At the time, I served as MUCC’s communications director, and Pacelle’s presence was no surprise. The group demanding the ban, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected, claimed to represent local citizens who cared about wolves. But KMWP’s leader, Jill Fritz, was a paid HSUS staffer.

Michigan’s wolf population, then estimated at 658 animals, had soared above endangered levels for more than a decade. Michigan’s wolf management plan defined a viable population as 200 wolves for five years in a row. HSUS lawsuits thwarted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s attempts to delist gray wolves in the Great Lakes region in 2004, 2007, and 2009. It wasn’t until 2011 that USFWS successfully delisted wolves in the region.
HSUS president Wayne Pacelle / Photo by Richard Shotwell.

In 2012, USFWS transferred wolf management to Michigan. The state legislature designated wolves as a game species and allowed hunting via Public Act 520.

The Michigan Natural Resources Commission rolled out the USFWS-approved management plan, which included a wolf hunt for fall 2013. Hunters harvested 22 wolves in the state’s first modern hunt—well below the harvest quota of 43.

And that’s when it hit the fan.

The HSUS Blueprint
Outraged by the hunt, KMWP paid a California-based group $350,000 to gather the necessary signatures to put the 2014 wolf hunt to a public vote this November.

HSUS used this same tactic in 2006, when it spent nearly $3 million to halt Michigan’s newly adopted dove season. Television ads appeared, showing a hunter blasting aimlessly at birds and crippled doves in the dirt. HSUS never confirmed if the video was authentic, despite repeated requests from media members—including myself. The ads also said doves are inedible and hunted solely for sport.

Deceptive as its high-dollar campaign was, HSUS won the vote by a landslide.

A woman protests Minnesota’s 2012 wolf hunt / Photo by Clint Austin.

“We had heard a lot about the dove fight,” says Kent Wood, MUCC’s former legislative affairs manager. “We knew we had to do things differently. We had to be aggressive. We had to be smart. We couldn’t outspend HSUS. But we could outwork and outsmart them.”

And that’s precisely what we did.

Proposal G
While the antis collected signatures, MUCC and its allies focused on a legal solution to derail the ballot measure. Our ace in the hole was a law passed in 1996.

Proposal G is the scar Pacelle wears on his backside from the first time he came to Michigan, in 1995. Pacelle and the Fund for Animals attempted to ban hounds and bait for bear hunting.

Fortunately, Prop G countered that initiative. It required that sound science, not emotional rhetoric, guide wildlife management in Michigan. Voters showed their approval by passing it by about 70 percent.

In 2012, Senator Tom Casperson drafted Senate Bill 288, which allows the NRC to share authority with lawmakers in designating game species. When passed in May 2013, SB 288 nullified HSUS’s initial bid to overturn the game designation for wolves.

So HSUS launched a second referendum, again paying to collect enough signatures for a vote and ignoring Prop G.

“We were hearing they intended to spend $3 million to win. I heard they had made threats to the Governor’s office about funding opponents to run against him because he’d signed the bill,” Wood says. “Is it true? I honestly don’t know. But I wouldn’t be surprised, because it’s something we heard more than once from credible sources.”

Hunters fought back, creating Citizens for Professional Wildlife Management to craft a citizen-initiated law to preserve the NRC’s authority to establish game laws.

A protestor in Minneapolis / Photo by Steve Karnowski

Since its founding in January 2013, Keep Michigan Wolves Protected has so far received nearly $2.7 million in donations (as of July 2014). HSUS and its lobbying arm provided $2.08 million of that, or 77 percent. In comparison, CPWM managed to raise $800,000 with help from groups like Michigan Bear Hunters Association and Safari Club International chapters.

CPWM gathered 374,000 signatures for the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act—exceeding the quota for legislative review and nearly double what either KMWP referendum collected.

The proposal easily passed both the House and Senate in August 2014. It should render the ballot initiatives null and void. But it’s still too early to celebrate. As I write this, the future of Michigan’s wolf hunt is still unknown.

An Idaho wolf hunter celebrates the harvest / Photo by Matt Moyer.

After all that, there will be no 2014 Michigan wolf season. Lawmakers did not vote to immediately implement the act, and legal waiting periods mean the earliest a hunt could occur is 2015, according to DNR sources. And, following the August vote, HSUS promised a lawsuit declaring the NRC law unconstitutional. HSUS accused hunters of using dirty tactics and singled out Casperson for silencing voters. He sees it differently.

“What I’m trying to take out of the hands of the public is the ability for a misleading 30-second sound bite to determine how our wildlife should be managed,” Casperson says. “I’m trying to protect and uphold the will of the voters, who overwhelmingly supported Proposal G. Michigan’s voters have already voted on this issue.”

How to Beat Them Again
So what happens when HSUS marches into a state without legislation in place to protect conservation practices?

Simple: Hunters will likely lose. Referendums are won with cash. And in a battle of the coffers, HSUS wins. HSUS dropped millions to try to overturn the wolf hunt, just as it’s raising millions to end bear hunting in Maine (see below).

Yet the hunting industry generates hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue each year. So why don’t we have a war chest to combat rampant HSUS spending?

Surprisingly, more money might not be the answer.

“It’s not just about stockpiling money to fight them. That’s a defensive measure,” says Nick Pinizzotto, executive director of the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance. “What we need is offense. We need to focus on the fact that 70 percent of Americans support hunting. That’s an overwhelming majority. HSUS wins ballot initiatives with deception, lies, and cash. I’m not sure we counter that with cash.”

Instead, Pinizzotto supports a long-term focus on maintaining and expanding public support for hunting. As long as the fate of wildlife management remains in the public arena, we’re going to need allies. So, hunters: Start recruiting.

Upper: A Montana billboard calling for an end to wolf hunting / Photo by William Campbell. Lower: The paw of one of two Michigan wolves checked in on opening day 2013 / Photo by
Cory Morse.

The Campaign to Scrap Lead Ammo
By Frank Miniter

HSUS is so sure it can outlaw your Core-Lokt bullets and lead shot that it published its master plan in August 2013. It’s called “The HSUS Lead-Free Campaign: A Strategic Offensive to End Suffering and Destruction Caused by Lead Ammunition.”

The document details HSUS’s federal and state approaches, and promises to launch public campaigns and legislative action across the U.S. to eradicate traditional ammo for good.

The Playbook
HSUS is relying on devious tactics to execute its outlined plan of attack.

The antis have gained ground with the public by exploiting perceived problems with lead. This includes citing studies that record higher lead levels among hunters who consume  game and raptors that presumably feed on gut piles. But HSUS fails to mention the lack of statistical significance noted in such reports.

HSUS, Defenders of Wildlife, and Audubon California sponsored Assembly Bill 711. Signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2013, the state law is on track to phase out lead ammo for hunting by 2019.

The three groups even commissioned a study on the availability of non-lead ammo. Dr. Vernon Thomas, deemed “one of the world’s leading experts in nontoxic ammunition” by HSUS, says non-lead ammo is readily available.

HSUS announced the study results at the end of July—just three days before the close of the public comment period on phasing in the ban.

“The findings should give [officials] the confidence that they can implement AB 711 as soon as possible without disrupting hunting activity in California,” Vernon said in the release.

But the extra expense and challenging access to non-lead ammo is sure to disrupt hunting. It’s a clever way for HSUS to shrink the pool of hunters. National Shooting Sports Foundation surveys reveal 36 percent of California hunters say the ban will cause them to stop hunting or hunt less, due to increased cost.

“Thirty-six percent of California hunters say they’ll stop hunting or hunt less.”

And California is only the beginning. The antis are targeting other states, and federal properties to boot. HSUS allied with 11 other organizations—and a whopping five individual sportsmen—to petition the Department of the Interior to ban lead ammo on federal lands. The public land in question makes up one-fifth of the U.S.

Defensive Strategies
In response to the petition, 33 hunting, conservation, and shooting groups—including the NRA, NSSF, and QDMA—wrote to the DOI in protest of HSUS’s petition, saying it’s “littered with ­pseudo-scientific statements that attempt, but fail, to link potential lead toxicity, from any number of possible sources, to federal statutory obligations to protect wildlife.” HSUS chooses studies that simply show lead can poison animals, which isn’t the question at hand.

A 2014 study by U.S. Fish and Wildlife reported 22 of 58 dead bald eagles (38 percent) in three states contained lethal levels of lead in their liver. Researchers speculated these eagles might have eaten lead bullet fragments or shot from gut piles.

“Bald eagles have been on the comeback for decades, and this small number of found-dead birds isn’t statistically significant to their overall population,” USFWS public-affairs specialist Sarah E. Warner says. “We need to keep studying as we continue to learn how to best balance humans and wildlife within our ecosystems.”

The 33 groups also noted that 95 percent of ammo used today is “traditional ammo with lead components,” the purchase of which sends money to conservation programs through tax revenues. The evidence indicates wildlife populations are benefiting from lead ammo sales, while no evidence exists to suggest wildlife populations are in danger from the current use of lead ammo.

HSUS in Maine: Fighting Dirty to Gut Bear Hunting
By Alex Robinson

HSUS is using Mainers for Fair Bear Hunting to push another anti-hunting initiative onto another ballot this November. If it passes, running black bears with hounds, trapping bears, and hunting them over bait will be banned in Maine. Bear numbers in the state have increased by 30 percent in the last six years, but MFBH says Maine will have no trouble managing populations without these ”cruel” methods.

This contradicts both the findings of state biologists and the experience of Maine sportsmen. All three gubernatorial candidates are against the ban, and about 11,000 hunters and trappers purchase bear permits each year.

Yet somehow, the Sportsman’s Alliance of Maine and its partners are still scrambling to raise money to fend off HSUS. Although hunters have rallied, HSUS’s massive budget and cunning political maneuvers make it impossible to predict the referendum’s outcome.

From Children’s Books to Kesha
The battle started in May 2013, when HSUS called a meeting with David Trahan and Don Kleiner, the executive directors of SAM and Maine Professional Guides Association, respectively. Kleiner and Trahan met with five HSUS representatives at the back of the capitol building’s cafeteria. The staffers wanted to discuss a hounding and trapping bill.

“They said, ‘We have $3 million. We have polling data that says we can win in Maine. And if you don’t support our bill, we’re going to submit a referendum and take away baiting, too. When we win that, we’re going to take away all the other things you care about,’” Trahan says.

Trahan, who served as a state representative for eight years and a state senator for four, had never before encountered such an aggressive political strike.

“I’d call it borderline extortion,” he says. “We’re not going to be intimidated. I’ve lived here all my life and I love my state. People come in from out of state and think they’re going to burn everything we care about here? They’ve got a fight on their hands.”

But MFBH is employing more than straight intimidation. The group posted photos to Facebook of children drawing bears under the slogan “Kids for Cubs.” Trahan says they also hosted library readings of the children’s classic Blueberries for Sal, which features an amiable Maine black bear. They even recruited L.A.–born pop icon Kesha to their cause.

These tactics have gone a long way toward galvanizing sportsmen in the region. As of press time, sportsmen had already raised about $2 million for the campaign to defend bear hunting. According to Kleiner, it’s no secret that most of the campaign funds—on both sides—will be pumped into television ads to air in the weeks leading up to the election.

“Maine isn’t a rich place,” Kleiner says. “But we’ve seen a ton of support from hunting clubs and organizations in the Northeast and around the country. Even fishing guides are donating.

See the full story of Maine’s bear hunt here

For more info on the economic impacts of Question 1 on Maine, click here.

Help Take Down HSUS
Can hunters really turn the tide against the Humane Society of the United States? Here’s how we can help take them down.

1. Donate to the U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance
2. Join local sportsmen’s groups
3. Contact legislators
4. Educate others about HSUS
5. Take a kid hunting

“Conservation organizations on Wednesday sued the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to force it to complete a long overdue, legally required recovery plan for the Mexican gray wolf, the lobo of Southwestern lore.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Arizona, aims to enforce compliance with rules the agency adopted 38 years ago to guide recovery of the federally endangered species driven to near extinction by wolf extermination campaigns of the 19th and 20th centuries.

The asshats listed below are NOT a part of ANY conservation organization-they are eco-terrorists,nothing more,nothing less.

Plaintiffs including the Defenders of Wildlife, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Endangered Wolf Center, the Wolf Conservation Center and David R. Parsons, a biologist who served as the agency’s Mexican gray wolf recovery coordinator from 1990 to 1999, accuse the agency of yielding to political pressure from ranchers, hunting groups and state officials in Utah, Arizona and Colorado.

Mr. Parsons joined the suit because he would have to get a real job if the wolf program was ended-as it should be-because there would be no more free .gov inc. grant money to support the man.

The Mexican gray wolf was reintroduced into a small area of eastern Arizona and western New Mexico in 1998 as part of a strategy to reach a population of 100 wolves, including 18 breeding pairs, by 2006.
Today, the population stands at 83 wolves, and five breeding pairs. They are managed under restrictions that do not permit the mobile, clannish hunters to colonize new territory, increasing the likelihood of inbreeding, according to the lawsuit. The restrictions also allow excessive killing and removal of wolves that take livestock, the lawsuit says.

By the agency’s own assessment in a recent draft environmental impact report, the existing population is “considered small, genetically impoverished, and significantly below estimates of viability appearing in the scientific literature.”

It’s always the same group of eco-freaks,animal “rights” whackos,and purveyors of eco-hysteria who file these moronic lawsuits.

They tried re-introducing the wolves in 1998-it is now 2014,and the population is “small, genetically impoverished, and significantly below estimates of viability appearing in the scientific literature.”

In English,that means there’s little to no chance that the Mexican gray wolf will re-populate the region.

These groups never sue to have packs of wolves,grizzly bears,wolverines,packs of coyotes,mountain lions,wild horses or any other critter “re-introduced” in THEIR neighborhoods.

It’s only the rural “rednecks” who are supposed to tolerate OUR pets and livestock being killed,ourselves and families being attacked,and OUR children being mauled,possibly killed by the animals these unicorn fart sniffing anti-human asswipes want to be “re-introduced”

These groups all believe that animals are more important than humans-they could do all of the animals,and the rest of us a huge favor by removing themselves from the planet-in an eco-friendly way of course…

Feds flood Colorado River through Grand Canyon

“FLAGSTAFF, Ariz. (AP) — Federal officials opened the floodgates at Glen Canyon Dam on Monday, sending water rushing through the Colorado River in the Grand Canyon. The five-day flood is meant to mimic conditions of the river before the dam was built, because the dam now blocks a majority of the sediment from traveling downstream.”

“The amount of water released over 96 hours will fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool every 2.5 seconds. The flood will distribute enough sediment through the Grand Canyon to bury a professional football stadium up to the lighting.”

Then the idiots have the balls to lie about the water release…


“No. To create the flood, Lake Powell will shrink by 2 1/2 feet. But Lake Mead in Nevada will rise by 2 1/2 feet as the increased amounts of water flow through the Colorado River and to Lake Mead. The flood won’t alter the amount of water sent between the two lakes annually, as monthly adjustments are made to account for the surge in water, officials said.”

BULL. SHIT. Lake mead and lake Powell are not the same size-in order for Powell to raise the water level of Mead by 2 1/2 ft-the lakes would have to be identical in depth-(they’re not)- surface area-(they’re not)- do these morons really think that no one is capable of figuring out that they’re lying?

From the land of rainbows,unicorns and bambi…

A University of Cincinnati physics professor is unhappy with the city’s plan to cull over-sized herds of deer in nearby parks because she “knows” the targeted deer population and doesn’t want them harmed. Her “solution” to the problem involves murdering her fellow citizens