slee

I don't know if you have heard, but I thought it should definitely be posted on here. I'll post the article below. We can't sit back on this one, guys. They ARE coming for us, and the general public is fairly easily swayed with half-truths and blatant lies. Let's not forget about the trapping ban. I have already e-mailed my senator and reps about taking wildlife issues out of the initiative process. We need to let them know we want legislation that relies on science rather than public emotion. This is why we are a target, and there are a large number of liberals who would be glad to save a deer. Take into account the negative publicity we have had around here lately with the guy poaching a deer in a neighborhood with a bow, the teenagers who shot the dog, and countless idiots around the country who have shot animals that were only wounded, only to run around with the arrow still in them. You can bet this will be used to persuade the public against us, regardless of science.

"U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance 801 Kingsmill Parkway, Columbus, OH 43229 Ph. 614/888-4868 . Fax 614/888-0326 Website: www.ussportsmen.org . E-mail: [email protected]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Doug Jeanneret (614) 888-4868 x 212 November 19, 2004 Beth Ruth (614) 888-4868 x 214

Animal Rights Groups to Announce Plan to Merge, Ban Bowhunting

(Columbus) - The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA) has learned that the nation's principal anti-hunting organizations will announce a merger on Monday, November 22. In announcing the merger, the unified anti-hunting group will reveal its intention to target bowhunters for extinction.

The USSA, a national organization founded to protect the rights of sportsmen to hunt, fish and trap, has been following a rumor that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Fund for Animals are preparing to combine forces.

The HSUS, located in Washington, D.C., is the nation's largest animal rights organization raising nearly $60 million in 2002. The Fund for Animals is the most vociferous anti-hunting organization and is headquartered in New York City. It raised $6.7 million in 2003.

Scripps Howard News Service reporter Lance Gay confirmed the merger announcement to USSA late Friday afternoon. Gay stated that sources within the groups confirmed that the new organization would seek to ban bowhunting as a first priority.

In response, USSA announced an emergency meeting of bowhunting organizations, businesses and publications to prepare to counter the attack. The Alliance created the Bowhunter Defense Coalition to defeat a series of attacks on bowhunters during the late 1980s.

"The merger announcement serves as a wake up call to bowhunting groups to reunite to defeat what promises to be a powerful attack on our heritage from this monstrous anti-hunting group," said Rick Story, U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance senior vice president. "To win, we will need to energize the vast grassroots network of sportsmen across this country."

Over the years, the Fund for Animals and HSUS have been the two most formidable organizations working to ban hunting. While the Fund for Animals has been openly hostile to hunters, HSUS has attempted to mask its intentions by raising funds using puppy calendars for promotions. Earlier this year, HSUS appointed former Fund for Animals official Wayne Pacelle to the position of CEO. Combined with the merger announcement, Pacelle's appointment leaves little doubt about the agenda of the newly-merged organization. According to public filings the new organization will have combined assets of as much as $97 million to implement its anti-hunting agenda."

muley69

Slee, I appreciate your concern, however, I disagree with your assertation that the public is easily swayed by lies. The public is not dumb, the problem does exist in the fact that a small number of people hunt, and a small number of people oppose it. The vast majority don't hunt, but are okay with it. I submit to you that the larger problem with hunting in America rest with the privitization of hunting lands via ownership, lease etc. Secondly, the encroachment of human population on traditional habitat is a problem. Thirdly, the classification of hunting via economic stratification is also a problem. Finally, the anti's rank about forth in my view. I say this not to discourage you from your fight, but rather to shed light on other area's that I feel provide an even larger threat to hunting. We should consider all of these issues when we choose to fight for or God given right to roam the wilderness in search of our quarry.

slee

Muley69,
Perhaps we will just have to agree to disagree. While I respect your opinion, unless you live on the west coast you can't really relate to the gravity and reality of this situation. We all have the initiative process which allows the public to put anything on the ballot if enough signatures are gathered. Look at our elections, and our problems will be obvious. King, Pierce, and Snohomish(Seattle and Tacoma area) counties dictate what the rest of the state must do because they have over half of the entire state's population. And yes, they are dumb when it comes to doing the smart thing for animals and wildlife management. Oregon is in a similar situation with the Portland and Eugene areas. Here in WA, we have already lost trapping, baiting bear, and hound hunting for bear and cougar, all through the initiative process in the last 8 years. It is a very REAL concern, and should be our #1 priority. The HSUS said themselves that they are coming after us, specifically naming CA, OR, and WA, with a $97 million war chest. The initiative process is their reason for chosing us because they can count on getting enough support to get it on the ballot And they don't fight with the truth, they play on the emotions of those that haven't really formed an opinion with lies and things taken out of context.

No offense, but your comments are precisely the problem, and they are counting on it. The national hunting public is apathetic on this subject, thinking it won't affect them. Well, it might not in your state. But if they ever get a foothold in a few states, they will start setting legislative precedence that can and will be referenced nationwide. They just made a big push to ban bear baiting in Alaska, but were defeated only because the sportsmen worked hard to get their message out. You might never be affected in your particular hunting spot in Montana, but we must stand together to fight the fight or everyone will suffer longterm. We west coasties need everyone to stand together on this. All the people who work in the archery industry, hunting gear industry, guides, etc need you because this will affect them too.

DUCKSTAMPEDE

I agree with you Slee-the west is under attack and we had better get organized across a wider base out here if we are going to defend our way of life from these folks. Let me know what I can do.

ceder

If muley69 thinks this won't happen in montana he needs to only look at one montana resident, TED TURNER. Out here in communist California we have a huge mountain lion problem, Thanks to the bunny huggers #2 no steel traps getting bigger coyote problem again thanks to the bunny huggers. Like Slee the greater San Fran. area by it's self vetos ALL votes north of I 80. Less than 10% of All deer tags out here are achery tags, Now Muley69 if you don't think this will not happen to you just hang on the enviro train is on the way.

muley69

The largest concentration of enironmental group headquarters outside of Washington D.C. is located in Missoula, MT, 52 miles north of here. First, I am not trivializing the anti's, I can't stand them. Second, who cares about Ted Turner? The man is dispised in this state. We also have the initiative process here in Montana and in November passed the right to hunt and fish iniative making it a constitutional right. Jim Posewitz, author of "Beyond Fair Chase" and director of Orion-The Hunters Institute was recently quoted as saying that the iniative passed here in Montana was not really necessary, in fact the single greatest threat to hunting was access to hunting area's due to the privitization of hunting lands. Whether hunting is legal or not becomes quite irrelavant if there is no place to hunt. You are all correct that sportsman need to band togather, but equally important is that we maintain a solid hunting population. I personally know people in the midwest who have quit hunting because they have no place to go, thus shrinking the ranks of hunters. Hunters are already a minority, but are bouyed by the fact that the general public accepts hunting, primarily because most have an uncle, cousin, dad etc that hunts.
Let me be clear that I do not take the Anti's lightly, but I wish they were not the sole focus of many hunters. Beat em up Slee, hell I'll help if it will do any good. I simply don't feel that the Anti's are the number one concern facing hunting today.

slee

First, we aren't talking environmental rights. This is strictly animal rights. And since Montana passed legislation to protect the right to hunt, they can't come at you from the initiative process. You proved my point of it probably not affecting you directly. The other issue is the number of liberals in your state that support the animal rights movement. Seen an election map of red and blue states? That really says it all. I'd also have to think with cattle and hunting being so popular in Montana, you probably don't see much in the way of protests or court dates to block stuff. Realisticly, we are debating apples and oranges. I would say Seattle is second to maybe LA or San Fran for numbers of animal rights activists. And just because the headquarters is in DC doesn't mean the greatest number of activists are there. They are on the West Coast. As far as hunting access goes, Washington state has one of the highest amounts of public land in the country, so your argument hits me about as much as mine hits you concerning losing hunting rights. I don't mean to minimalize the points you make. Clearly they are important issues. But they aren't likely to end hunting in one giant swoop, whereas this has the potential for that for bowhunters on the west coast.

ceder

OK we need to get back to sticking together so we can stop the anti's. we also need to remember people are like sheep thay will go to who ever is pumping the biggest pile of crap. We as hunters are under the microscope to tell the truth about why and how we hunt, and all that hunting entails, where as the anti's can bend and tell half truths and no one questions there " facts ". Be it number one on the list or number four we need to take a stand and get involved.

Mite

I wonder if we could do what they did in Montana? 20k hunters here. Over in Eastern Washington the majority of the population supports hunting I suspect. Jump the gun before they can come here. Any Tim Eimens out there?

summit daWg

[:'(] Also..... See hunting politics. com....NJ Group wants to Ban all Hunting........
Doesn't really matter if it is leaf lickers aganst ATVs Bikes and snowmobiles, or anti hunters against hunters....... we need to unite as outdoor enthusiasts and then we could kick some butt!
Unfortunately, we have some hunters (on the political forums) who would join up with the leaf lickers, that DO NOT see the big picture!