Get Updates! and Search
No RSS feeds have been linked to this section.

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Entries in anti-fishing (162)

Thursday
Feb262015

Congress Stops Lead Ban Attempts for 2015

Congress stood solidly on the side of anglers and hunters late last year, as it specified in an appropriations bill that unwarranted regulation of fishing tackle and ammunition with lead components via the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) would be banned during the 2015 fiscal year.

“We applaud Congressional leadership for protecting the nation’s 60 million anglers from unjustified restrictions on fishing equipment that anglers have safely used for decades,” said Mike Nussman, president of the American Sportfishing Association.

Section 425 of the $1.1 trillion bill states, “None of the funds made available by this or any other act may be used to regulate the lead content of ammunition, ammunition components, or fishing tackle . . .”

But the fix is only temporary. Should Congress pass the Sportsmen’s Package Bill in 2015, which was derailed by last year’s Senate, the protection could become permanent.

During the past few years, environmental and other groups persistently have lobbied the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to ban use of lead by anglers, hunters, and shooters.

“On multiple occasions, the Environmental Protection Agency has been petitioned by anti-fishing organizations to federally ban fishing tackle containing lead based on its impact on wildlife, a position that is not based on sound science,” Nussman added.

Monday
Jan052015

Want to Help Animals? Give Locally, Not to ASPCA, HSUS

Many fishermen own dogs and/or love animals. That’s why they’re targets for the latest television advertising blitz by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), a New York-based organization.

The commercials feature photos of abused dogs and cats, as sad music plays in the background and a narrator pleads for donations. The implication clearly is that the money will be used to help these animals. The reality is that most of it will not.

“But the reality is that in 2012, the ASPCA gave just 0.045% of its multi-million dollar donations to local shelters. That’s less than one-half of one percent, broken down in even tinier portions in order to be spread all over the country,” says the Examiner in an expose about the deceptive marketing campaigns run by both ASPCA and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Both of these organizations run these campaigns from time to time, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars from people who believe that their donations will help homeless/abused animals at local shelters. But most of that money is used for advertising/marketing, administrative costs (including six-figure salaries), and, especially in the case of HSUS, a political agenda that is anti-hunting, anti-fishing, and anti-farming.

Please, if you want to help homeless/abused animals, give to local shelters, which are NOT affiliated with these national organizations.

Need more information? Check out the following:

  • Lawyers in Cages is a brilliant parody of the tear-jerker ads that HSUS and ASPCA create.
  • "Despite (ASPCA) raising a combined $519 million nationally, North Carolina animal welfare groups received only $1.1 million in major grants. That's almost the same amount the ASPCA paid one telemarketer for one fundraising campaign that ended in July. 

"In 2009, records show North Carolina received $517,845 from the ASPCA, the second most of any state. However, 96 percent went to one spay and neuter group in Asheville."

  • HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter. HSUS is not affiliated with any pet shelters. And HSUS gives just 1 percent of the money it raises to pet shelters.”
  •  “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 HSUS lobbies against the agriculture industry, hunting, trapping, dog breeders, pet stores and numerous other groups. Their lobbying efforts cost lots of money. In 2010, for example, HSUS reported spending more than $13.5 with a fundraising consultant and more than $10 million on marketing efforts to promote HSUS and its programs. More than $1.7 million was spent on legal fees by the HSUS that year alone.”

 

Tuesday
Nov042014

Anti-Angler Says, 'Please Enlighten Me!'

Those who don’t want us to fish are all around us. Unfortunately,  they don’t wear signs so we can identify them, take them fishing, and open their eyes to the happiness, the peace of mind, and all of the other good things that they are missing.

Here’s a message that I received today at Activist Angler:

"hi, just saw your page. Am wondering why catch and release should be allowed. For people's fun? because you enjoy fishing so much? How would you feel if someone was hunting you for fun? Have you tried to find another pass time? Its cruel in my opinion. Even if you say the fish can't feel pain , they are fighting for their lives...please enlighten me!"

I recommended that he/she read my book, Why We Fish--- Reel Wisdom From Real Fishermen.

Sadly, I doubt that he/she will. The tone of the message clearly indicates that this person has a closed mind and is not about to open it to the myriad blessings that fishing bestows.

Thursday
Sep042014

TRCP Responds to Green Decoys Accusations

On Aug. 14, I posted accusations that Green Decoys is making against the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership (TRCP). They relate mostly to TRCP’s assertion that it represents sportsmen, as it takes funds from environmental groups that often are anti-fishing and anti-hunting, as well as supportive of tighter gun controls.

In response, TRCP says this:

“The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership stands on its record of success fighting for sportsmen by fighting for conservation and access. Since its inception, the organization has been attacked by anti-conservation forces, usually working through industry front groups, for one simple reason: if sportsmen unite, sportsmen win.

“Before giving any credence to these attacks, we encourage people to research who is making the attacks and who is funding the attacks. In the meantime, the TRCP will keep working to guarantee all Americans quality places to hunt and fish.”

It adds that the organization “operates financially with a very high degree of transparency . . . We are funded at numerous levels, from foundation grants all the way down to yearly $35 members. Our annual report and Form 990 are published openly on our website for all to see.”

Finally, it provides links regarding the origin of Green Decoys, and, I’ll acknowledge that it does not seem as transparent as TRCP regarding its origin and funding.  Green Decoys describes itself as “a project of the Environmental Policy Alliance.”

And the Environmental Policy Alliance is “a project of the Center for Organizational Research & Education” which was formerly the Center for Consumer Freedom.  The latter originated with Richard Berman, a public relations specialist, who campaigns against environmental groups and labor unions, among others.

But I must say that I am in sympathy with Berman regarding his opposition to the “nanny culture” in general and some of the “targets” listed on the Berman Exposed website. They include ACORN, PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, teachers unions, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Here’s a reminder about  EPA: A couple of years ago, a bureaucrat there compared his agency’s enforcement strategy to Roman crucifixion of Christians. When his comments went public, he was forced to resign.

But you can bet he’s not the only one in the EPA and other federal agencies who thinks that way. Remember Lois Lerner at the IRS?

Bottom line for me: Environmental funding groups push agendas in favor of bigger and more intrusive government and that inevitably leads to loss of freedom and abuse of power by unelected bureaucrats like that EPA official and Lois Lerner. Yes, TRCP does some great things on behalf of sportsmen, but, as it does so, it takes money from those groups, which also support anti-fishing and anti-hunting organizations and policies.  What does that cozy relationship mean for the future of fishing and hunting?

Monday
Aug252014

Animal Rights Activists Threaten Wildlife Management in Michigan

 

*     *       *        *

The animal rights movement is more active than ever before, and working hard to limit and/or eliminate fishing, hunting, trapping, and science-based management of our wildlife resources. You may not be at war with them, but they are at war with you.

This from the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation regarding the battle in Michigan:

Efforts led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) over the last two years in Michigan have put the state's ability to properly manage its natural resources at risk.

Thankfully, those from Michigan's sportsmen's community and the Michigan Legislative Sportsmen's Caucus have joined forces to combat HSUS's objective of stripping the Natural Resource Commission's (NRC) authority to manage wildlife based on scientific principles. These sportsmen efforts translated into nearly 300,000 certified signatures in support of enacting the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act (SFWCA).

This citizen-initiated law will safeguard the NRC's authority to manage Michigan's fish and wildlife using the best available science.

On August 13, the Michigan Senate demonstrated its commitment to conservation by voting in favor of the SFWCA. The decision now goes to the House of Representatives, whose approval would codify the SFWCA without the need for the governor's signature. Lack of approval would send the SFWCA to the November ballot for popular vote where the emotionally charged and ill-informed campaigns of HSUS could sway voters from making the best decision for Michigan's wildlife resources.

It is imperative that representatives hear from constituents who support professional fish and wildlife management and are encouraged to vote in favor of the SFWCA on August 27. Opponents will be working hard to sway legislators, so it is up to the sportsmen's community to surpass their efforts in these final two days. At nearly two million strong, the voices of Michigan's hunters and anglers cannot be ignored.

Please contact members of the Michigan House of Representatives today and urge them to support the Scientific Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act!

Look up your Michigan House member here. Read more here.